federal register

7605

Friday

February 13, 1998

Part VII

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Consumer Confidence;

Proposed Rule
7606 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

RIN 2040–AC 99

[FRL–5967–2]

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Consumer Confidence

Reports

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

alternative definition.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to require

community water systems to prepare

and provide to their customers annual

reports on the quality of the water

delivered by the systems. This action is

mandated by the 1996 amendments to

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

These reports would provide valuable

information to consumers of tap water

from community water systems and

allow them to make personal healthbased decisions regarding their drinking

water consumption.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposed rule must be received by EPA

on or before March 30, 1998. EPA will

hold a public meeting about the

proposal in Washington, DC on March

3, 1998 beginning at 9 a.m. A second

public meeting will take place in San

Francisco, CA on March 10, 1998

beginning at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on

this proposed rule to the Consumer

Confidence Report Comment Clerk:

Water Docket MC–4101 (docket #W–97–

18), Environmental Protection Agency:

401 M Street, S.W., Washington DC

20460. Please submit an original and

three copies of your comments and

enclosures (including references).

Commenters who want EPA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

must enclose a self-addressed, stamped

envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be

accepted. Comments may also be

submitted electronically to owdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and forms of encryption.

Electronic comments must be identified

by Docket #W–97–18. Comments and

data will also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 format or ASCII file

format. Electronic comments on this

notice may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

The record for this rulemaking has

been established under docket #W–97–

18, and includes supporting

documentation as well as printed paper

versions of electronic comments. The

record is available for review at EPA’s

Water Docket: 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington DC 20460. For access to the

Docket materials, call 202–260–3027

between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. for an

appointment and reference ‘‘Docket

#W–97–18’’.

The public meetings will take place in

the following locations: Washington,

DC—EPA Auditorium, 401 M St, SW,

Washington, DC. San Francisco—EPA,

1st floor conference rooms, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the

Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free

800–426–4791 for general information

about, and copies of, this document. For

technical inquiries, contact: Franc ̧oise

M. Brasier 202–260–5668 or Rob Allison

202–260–9836.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Authority

II. Consultation with Public Water Systems,

State and Local Governments,

Environmental Groups, Public Interest

Groups, and Risk Communication

Experts

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Purpose and Applicability

B. Effective Dates and Rationale

C. Rationale for Content of the Reports

D. Required Health Information and

Rationale

E. Report Delivery

F. Special State Primacy Requirements and

Rationale

G. Health Effect Language and Rationale

IV. Request for Public Comments

V. Cost of Rule

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. General

2. Use of Alternative Definition

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Environmental Justice

G. Risk to Children Analysis

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Regulated persons

Potentially regulated persons are

community water systems.

Category Example of regulated entities

Publicly-owned CWSs ........ Municipalities; County Governments; Water districts; Water and Sewer Authorities.

Privately-owned CWSs ....... Private water utilities; homeowners associations.

Ancillary CWSs ................... Persons who deliver drinking water as an adjunct to their primary business (e.g. trailer parks, retirement homes).

The table is not intended to be

exhaustive. It provides a guide for

readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in this table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 141.151 of the

rule. If you have questions regarding the

applicability of this section to a

particular entity, consult the persons

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

Consumer Right-To-Know Provisions in

the Safe Drinking Water Act

The 1996 amendments to the Safe

Drinking Water Act contain extensive

provisions for consumer involvement

and right-to-know that herald a new era

of public participation in drinking water

protection. These provisions are

founded on the principle that

consumers have a right to know what is

in their drinking water and where it

comes from before they turn on the tap.

With the information provided in these

provisions, consumers will be better

able to make health decisions for

themselves and their families.

The Consumer Confidence Reports are

the centerpiece of public right-to-know

in SDWA. The information contained in

these reports can raise consumers’

awareness of where their water comes

from, show them the process by which

safe drinking water is delivered to their

homes, educate them about the

importance of prevention measures such

as source water protection to a safe

drinking water supply. The reports can

be a tool that starts a dialogue between

consumers and their drinking water

utilities, and one that gets consumers

more involved in decisions which may

affect their health. The information can

be a means for consumers, especially

those with special health needs, to make

informed decisions regarding their

drinking water. And finally, the reports
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7607

are a key to unlock more drinking water

information. They will provide access

through references or telephone

numbers to source water assessments,

health effects data, and additional

information about the water system. The

Agency is considering demonstrating its

support for the consumer confidence

reports by establishing, in consultation

with the states, an award program

which would recognize innovative

reports.

Other right-to-know provisions in

SDWA include changes to the public

notification requirements, which will

give the consumers of public water

supplies more accurate and timely

information on violations. Persons

served by a public water system must be

given notice within 24 hours of any

violation of a national drinking water

standard ‘‘that has the potential to have

serious adverse effects on human health

as a result of short-term exposure.’’

EPA’s regulation making these changes

is scheduled to be promulgated in

August, 1999.

In addition, the public will have

access to the completed source water

assessments. States are required under

the 1996 SDWA amendments to assess

the condition of every public water

supply within the State, including the

boundaries of the source of that water

supply and contamination threats

within that source. The consumer

confidence reports will provide

information on the availability of the

assessment for that water supply.

By August, 1999, EPA will develop a

national contaminant occurrence data

base, that will provide information on

the occurrence of both regulated and

unregulated contaminants in public

water systems. This information will be

made available to the public through the

Internet.

Finally, the public will be provided

with early information on state variance

decisions involving their public water

system. Public water systems serving

fewer than 10,000 persons that cannot

meet national primary drinking water

regulations may apply for a variance to

use an alternate technology to meet the

regulation. Consumers served by that

water supply have a right to object to

the variance.

All of these public right-to-know

provisions are based on the belief that

accountability to the public and the

understanding and support of the public

will be vital to address and prevent

threats to drinking water quality in the

years ahead. The provisions provide

unprecedented opportunities for the

public to participate in decisions related

to the protection of their water supplies.

If the public uses the opportunities, they

can ensure that the choices made—

particularly by EPA and the states, but

also by water suppliers—respond to the

public’s needs and concerns.

I. Statutory Authority

Section 114 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1996 (Public

Law 104–182), enacted August 6, 1996,

amends Section 1414(c) of the Act (42

U.S.C. 300g–3(c)). A new section

1414(c)(4) provides for annual consumer

confidence reports by community water

systems to their customers. Section

1414(c)(4)(A) mandates a number of

actions by the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency, who

is required to develop and issue

regulations within 24 months of the date

of enactment (i.e. in August 1998). The

regulations must be developed in

consultation with public water systems,

environmental groups, public interest

groups, risk communication experts, the

States, and other interested parties. The

regulations must, at a minimum, require

each community water system to mail to

each customer of the system at least

once annually a report on the level of

contaminants in the drinking water

purveyed by that system. The

regulations are required by section

1414(c)(4)(A) to provide a ‘‘brief and

plainly worded’’ definition of four

terms: ‘‘maximum contaminant level

goal,’’ ‘‘maximum contaminant level,’’

‘‘variances,’’ and ‘‘exemptions.’’ In

addition, section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires

the regulations to contain brief

statements in plain language regarding

the health concerns that resulted in

regulation of each regulated

contaminant, and a brief and plainly

worded explanation regarding

contaminants that may reasonably be

expected to be present in drinking

water, including bottled water. Finally,

section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires the

regulations to provide for an EPA tollfree hotline that consumers can call for

more information and explanation.

Section 1414 of SDWA, as amended,

also provides, in a new section (c)(4)(B)

of the Act, additional specific

requirements for the contents of the

consumer confidence reports. The

reports are required to include, but need

not be limited to, the following

information:

• Information on the source of the

water purveyed. (section

1414(c)(4)(B)(i))

• A brief and plainly worded

definition of the terms ‘‘maximum

contaminant level goal,’’ ‘‘maximum

contaminant level,’’ ‘‘variances,’’ and

‘‘exemptions,’’ as provided in

regulations by the Administrator.

(section 1414(c)(4)(B)(ii))

• If any regulated contaminant is

detected in the water purveyed by the

community water system, a statement

setting forth: (1) the maximum

contaminant level goal, (2) the

maximum contaminant level, (3) the

level of such contaminant in the water

system, and (4) for any regulated

contaminant for which there has been a

violation of the maximum contaminant

level during the year covered by the

report, the brief statement in plain

language regarding the health concerns

that resulted in regulation of that

contaminant, as provided by the

Administrator in regulations under

section 1414(c)(4)(A). (section

1414(c)(4)(B)(iii))

• Information on compliance with

national primary drinking water

regulations, as required by the

Administrator, and notice if the system

is operating under a variance or

exemption and the basis on which the

variance or exemption was granted.

(section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv))

• Information on the levels of

unregulated contaminants for which

monitoring is required under section

1445(a)(2) (including levels of

Cryptosporidium and radon where

States determine they may be found.)

(section 1414(c)(4)(B)(v))

• A statement that the presence of

contaminants in drinking water does not

necessarily indicate that the drinking

water poses a health risk and that more

information about contaminants and

potential health effects can be obtained

by calling the Safe Drinking Water

hotline. (section 1414(c)(4)(B)(vi))

Section 1414(c)(4)(B) also provides

that a community water system may

include any additional information that

it deems appropriate for public

education. In addition, the

Administrator may require, through

regulation, a consumer confidence

report to include for not more than three

regulated contaminants, a brief

statement in plain language regarding

the health concerns that resulted in

regulation of the contaminant even if

there has not been a violation of the

maximum contaminant level during the

year concerned.

Section 1414(c)(4)(C) authorizes the

Governor of a State to determine not to

apply the mailing requirement to

community water systems serving fewer

than 10,000 persons. Such systems then

would be required to inform their

customers that the system will not be

mailing the report; make the report

available on request to the public; and

publish the report annually in one or

more local newspapers serving the areas

in which the systems’ customers are

located.
7608 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Section 1414(c)(4)(D) allows those

community water systems that are not

required to meet the mailing

requirements, and which serve 500

persons or fewer, to meet their

consumer confidence report obligation

by preparing an annual report and

providing notice at least once per year

to each customer by mail, by door-todoor delivery, by posting, or by any

other means authorized in the

regulations, that the consumer

confidence report is available upon

request.

Section 1414(c)(4)(E) provides that a

State exercising primary enforcement

responsibility may establish by rule,

after public notice and comment,

alternative requirements with respect to

the form and content of the consumer

confidence reports.

This rule, when issued in final form,

is intended to fulfill the rulemaking

requirements outlined in amended

section 1414(c)(4).

II. Consultation With Public Water

Systems, State and Local Governments,

Environmental Groups, Public Interest

Groups, and Risk Communication

Experts

As required under section 1414 of

SDWA, as amended, the Agency has met

extensively with a broad range of groups

in the development of this proposed

rule. Early in the regulatory

development process, EPA held a series

of meetings with community water

system operators and customers located

in California, to obtain information

about California’s annual Water Quality

Reports requirement, which has been in

effect since 1990, and to learn from the

California program’s experiences. In

particular, EPA held meetings with

operators of small rural public water

systems at the California Rural Water

Association Annual Meeting held in

February 1997. Also in February 1997,

EPA met with a focus group of water

customers in California to obtain

information about their reactions to

receiving annual reports about drinking

water quality and how such reports

should be structured and used. Finally,

EPA met with members of the

Association of California Water

Agencies, primarily including

representatives from large public water

systems, public utility commissions,

cities, and metropolitan areas.

The Agency met four times between

February and July 1997 with a special

working group of the National Drinking

Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). The

Advisory Council has been established

under Section 10(a)(2) of Public Law

92–423, ‘‘The Federal Advisory

Committee Act’’ and SDWA. By law,

NDWAC is empowered to provide

advice to EPA on regulatory issues. The

Consumer Confidence Report Working

Group, in turn, was established by

NDWAC to provide advice to it on the

particular issues raised in the

development of EPA’s regulation on

consumer confidence reports.

The NDWAC Consumer Confidence

Report Working Group was composed of

a designated Federal officer; three

NDWAC members who served as liaison

between the full NDWAC and the

Working Group; and eighteen other

members. The Working Group

contained members from public health

organizations; local, State, and Federal

government agencies with

responsibilities for supervising public

drinking water providers; operators of

large and small drinking water systems;

consumer representatives;

environmental organizations; and

business and trade associations. The

Working Group met in four two-day

sessions, between February and July

1997, to discuss issues raised by the

consumer confidence report

requirements in the 1996 SDWA

amendments and to analyze and debate

initial proposals for the consumer

confidence report regulatory

requirements. At the end of the Working

Group meetings, in July 1997, the group

submitted a draft of the regulations

highlighting unresolved issues to the

full NDWAC for its review. NDWAC in

turn presented its recommendations to

EPA on the regulation being proposed

today in a NDWAC report submitted in

August 1997. These documents are

available in the Docket for this

rulemaking.

In June 1997, EPA convened a oneday meeting of a group of private, State,

and Federal experts in public health and

the communication of risk-related

information to general audiences. The

panel critiqued preliminary ideas for the

consumer confidence report regulatory

requirements and provided suggestions

to EPA on effective methods of

communicating risk information.

As it developed today’s regulatory

proposal, EPA continued to meet with

water system operators and customers.

In May 1997 the Agency obtained the

views of system operators in Wyoming,

a State chosen because EPA operates the

drinking water program in that State.

The Agency also held a town meeting in

Casper, Wyoming to solicit the views of

water system customers.

EPA also received the views of a

number of organizations on the

potential contents of consumer

confidence reports. In particular,

Agency staff attended a one-day

workshop in May 1997 sponsored by the

Environmental Law Institute in which

water customers and citizens in the

Washington, D.C. area discussed

communication of drinking water

information. EPA also was provided the

results of a series of focus groups held

in six locations across the country by

the American Water Works Association

to obtain information and viewpoints

about drinking water risk

communication issues.

EPA also discussed the proposal with,

and received comments from, another

EPA advisory group, the Local

Government Advisory Committee. EPA

discussed the statute and EPA’s plans

for developing the proposal at a meeting

with the Committee in San Francisco in

February 1997, and provided a draft of

the rule to the Committee and discussed

the draft at its meeting in New Orleans

in May 1997.

The rule being proposed today is

based on the NDWAC recommendations

to EPA and has been developed in close

consultation with public water systems,

environmental groups, public interest

groups, risk communication experts, the

States, and other interested parties, as

required by the 1996 Amendments.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Purpose and Applicability

The rule being proposed today

establishes the minimum requirements

for the content of consumer confidence

reports.

The rule would apply to existing and

new community water systems.

‘‘Community water systems’’ are a

subset of ‘‘public water systems.’’ A

‘‘public water system,’’ as defined by

section 1401 of SDWA, is ‘‘a system for

the provision of water for human

consumption through pipes or other

constructed conveyances, if such system

has at least fifteen service connections

or regularly serves at least twenty-five

individuals.’’ ‘‘Community water

systems’’ are public water systems

which serve year-round residents. Thus,

systems that do not have 15 or more

service connections used by year-round

residents or regularly supply at least 25

year-round residents are not subject to

today’s rule.

Out of the approximately 180

thousand water systems in the United

States, only approximately 60 thousand

are considered community water

systems. They range from large

municipal systems that serve millions of

persons to small systems, which serve

fewer than 100 persons. Community

water systems can be further categorized

as publicly-owned systems, including

systems owned and operated by

municipalities, townships, counties,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7609

water districts, and water authorities;

privately-owned systems, which may be

owned and operated by groups ranging

from investor owned water companies

to homeowners associations; and

ancillary systems, which are small

systems that provide water as an

ancillary function of their principal

business or enterprise. Ancillary

systems are primarily mobile home

parks and a variety of institutional water

providers. Public, private, and ancillary

community water systems are all subject

to today’s rule.

The balance of the water systems in

the United States, or approximately 130

thousand systems, are either so-called

‘‘transient non-community systems’’

which do not serve the same people on

a day to day basis (for example, highway

rest stops) or ‘‘non-transient noncommunity systems’’ which serve at

least 25 of the same people at least 6

months of the year (for example,

schools). Because today’s rule applies

only to community water systems, as

provided by Congress in the 1996

Amendments to SDWA, transient and

non-transient non-community systems

are not covered.

EPA notes that water wholesalers are

also considered community water

systems. However, if such a system did

not retail water to any customer, i.e.

billing unit or drinking water hook-up,

the system would not have to prepare a

consumer confidence report. EPA notes

that these systems already provide

monitoring information to the States.

They would have to provide that

information to the purchaser so that the

purchaser can prepare the consumer

confidence report. In the case of

consecutive systems, i.e. a chain of

utilities which provide water to each

other, the system delivering water to the

customers would be the one preparing

the consumer confidence report.

B. Effective Dates and Rationale

Today’s rule would become effective

30 days after publication of the final

rule in the Federal Register and

community water systems would have

to deliver the first report to their

customers within 13 months of the

effective date of the regulations. The

Agency is anxious that these

requirements become effective as soon

as practicable because of the importance

of this provision. The Agency also

believes that the proposed dates are

practicable since they would give

systems a full 14 months to prepare

their first report. Each consumer

confidence report is required to describe

monitoring results for the past twelvemonth period. EPA believes that giving

community water systems a period

slightly longer than a year to prepare the

first report ensures that they will have

the time to assemble the necessary

information, to develop the necessary

report format, and to arrange for

distribution of the consumer confidence

reports. In addition, some States are

already implementing or developing

their own reporting requirements. EPA

also believes that the 14 month period

after enactment of the rule would ensure

that systems that had recently prepared

a State mandated report would not be

required to immediately prepare another

report required by today’s rule.

New community water systems, that

is, community water systems that begin

delivering water to customers after the

effective date of today’s rule, must

deliver their first report within 18

months of the date that they begin

delivering water to customers. EPA

concluded that the longer period of time

before delivery of the first reports would

allow new systems to initiate and carry

out a broader range of monitoring

activities (some required monitoring

requires at least one year’s collection of

data; other required monitoring may

occur over a period in excess of 12

months). In addition, the 18 month

period will allow new systems to

develop and implement procedures for

preparing and distributing the reports.

Some stakeholders argued that the

Agency should propose that all reports

be due on a certain date. They believed

that this would give the reports more

impact by allowing for an orchestrated

outreach campaign at the time of

issuance. The Agency believes however,

that there are merits to allowing some

flexibility since different utilities will

have different start-up needs. States can

make different decisions when they

promulgate their regulations and would

be free to impose a specific date for

issuance of the consumer reports under

their jurisdiction.

C. Rationale for Content of the Reports

In developing today’s rule on the

contents of consumer confidence reports

prepared by community water systems,

EPA sought to provide community

water systems with the maximum

amount of flexibility to design their

reports, consistent with the

requirements of the 1996 Amendments.

The Agency therefore generally limited

the requirements for the content of

reports, found in §§ 141.153 and

141.154 of the proposed rule, to a

clarification and explanation of the

requirements in section 114 of the 1996

Amendments. In addition to today’s

rule, EPA is planning to prepare and

issue detailed guidance that will

provide supplementary information and

examples of ways in which systems can

prepare and present the data in

consumer confidence reports. The

Agency also will develop, prior to the

effective date of the rule computerized

‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’ templates that water

systems will be able to use if they are

unable or do not choose to develop their

own consumer confidence report

format. The Agency anticipates that very

small systems, in particular, will be able

to use these templates to minimize the

burden of preparing the reports.

1. Information on the Source of the

Water Purveyed

Consumer confidence reports are

intended primarily to convey

information to persons served by

community water systems about the

quality of the water they are consuming.

Thus, the emphasis of the reports is on

‘‘finished’’ rather than ‘‘source’’ water.

Congress did, however, require the

reports to include information about the

sources of the water delivered by the

system. In addition, many of the

participants in public meetings on the

consumer confidence reports held by

EPA, and the members of the expert

panel on risk communication convened

by EPA, argued that the reports will be

substantially more interesting and

useful to persons if the reports provide

context for the information about

finished water. Therefore, today’s rule

specifies that each report must identify

the sources of the water delivered by the

community water system by providing

information on the type of water (that is,

whether the source is ground water,

surface water, a combination of the two,

or water obtained from another system);

and the commonly used name or names

(if any) and location of the body or

bodies of water. Several commenters on

the report requirements suggested to

EPA that maps of water sources are a

particularly effective means of

communicating this information. The

Agency is encouraging systems to use

maps in the consumer confidence

reports whenever possible, although

maps have not been included in the

mandatory contents of the reports.

One issue raised during the

development of the proposal was

whether the rule should require

information on sources of

contamination that may have an impact

on the quality of the source water used

by a community water system. Some

stakeholders argued that if particular

sources of contamination are known for

the sources of water delivered by the

community water system, the consumer

confidence reports should provide a

concise description of them. The public

frequently has a general knowledge of
7610 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

the contamination sources that affect

particular surface water bodies,

according to the advocates of this

provision, and failing to provide

information about them can reduce the

credibility of the reports generally.

Other stakeholders noted that the

consumer confidence reports deal

primarily with the quality of the

finished water as it is delivered to its

consumers. They argued that a

requirement to provide information on

contaminants in source water without

regard to their presence in the finished

water may lead to unnecessary

concerns. The Agency notes the

difficulty of definitively linking

contaminants to specific sources and the

liability issues that may arise if the

reports attempt to do so without

adequate documentation.

The 1996 Amendments to the Safe

Drinking Water Act created a new

program of source water assessments

under section 1453 of the Act. The

Agency has issued guidance on State

Source Water Assessment and

Protection Programs, under which

States with primary enforcement

authority must: (1) delineate the

boundaries of the areas providing source

waters for public water systems and (2)

identify, to the extent practical, the

origins of regulated and certain

unregulated contaminants in the

delineated area to determine the

susceptibility of public water systems to

such contaminants. Assessments are to

be completed for all public water

systems within two years after EPA’s

approval of the State’s program with

possible 18 month extensions.

In an effort to balance competing

concerns regarding the provisions of

information on contaminant sources in

the report, today’s rule creates a linkage

with this Source Water Assessment

program by requiring that if a source

water assessment has been completed

for the community water system, that

system’s consumer confidence report

must notify customers of the availability

of this information and the means to

obtain it. This will allow interested

parties to get accurate and detailed

information on the sources of

contaminants.

However, as recommended by the

NDWAC, today’s rule does not include

a requirement that consumer confidence

reports contain specific information

about sources of contamination which

may affect the quality of the source

water, although it does require that

generic information be provided about

the likely sources of detected regulated

contaminants. The Agency is inviting

comments on this issue.

2. Definitions

The rule contains definitions in

§ 141.153 (c)(1) and (2) of four terms

that must be used in consumer

confidence reports: ‘‘Maximum

contaminant level goal or MCLG,’’

‘‘Maximum Contaminant Level or

MCL,’’ ‘‘Variances,’’ and ‘‘Exemptions.’’

These definitions differ from those

found in 40 CFR 141.2. The definitions

are designed to explain key components

of the national primary drinking water

regulations in brief, plainly worded

terms. The draft definitions were

examined closely by the NDWAC

Consumer Confidence Reports Working

Group, by the expert panel, and by

EPA’s own staff. All of these reviewers

recognized that the definitions,

particularly the definitions for

maximum contaminant level goal

(MCLG) and maximum contaminant

level (MCL), represent dramatic

simplifications of complicated

processes. The expert panel, in

particular, recommended that EPA test

these definitions and, if necessary,

revise them. The Agency therefore is

specifically requesting comments on

these proposed definitions.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or

MCLG is defined by the proposed rule

as ‘‘The level of a contaminant in

drinking water below which there is no

known or expected risk to health.’’ This

definition therefore highlights the

requirement in the SDWA that EPA set

MCLGs at a level at which ‘‘no known

or anticipated adverse effects on the

health of persons occur and which

allows an adequate margin of safety.’’

The definition does not attempt to

describe the use of Reference Doses to

determine the MCLG for noncarcinogenic contaminants and Class C

carcinogens, nor does it specify that for

Class A and B carcinogens the MCLG

must be set at zero. The expert panel

was particularly concerned by the lack

of context in the proposed definition,

noting that it contains no information

about how drinking water is determined

to be safe. At the same time, the Panel

recognized the difficulty of developing

a simple and accurate description of the

process that would be suitable for

inclusion in the reports. Some panel

members suggested that EPA develop a

one-page handout on the process of

setting MCLs and MCLGs, which could

either be included in the reports or

made separately available to drinking

water consumers. EPA is requesting

comment on this issue.

Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL

is defined by the proposed rule as ‘‘the

highest level of a contaminant that is

allowed in drinking water.’’ This

definition highlights the function of the

MCL as an enforceable standard under

the primary drinking water regulations.

The agency is aware that this definition

does not provide an explanation of how

the MCLs are set. As provided by

SDWA, EPA sets MCLs as close to the

corresponding MCLGs as ‘‘feasible with

the use of the best technology, treatment

techniques, and other means, which the

Administrator finds, after examination

for efficacy under field conditions and

not solely under laboratory conditions

are available (taking cost into

consideration).’’

The expert panel in particular noted

that these definitions do not provide

any content for interpreting the health

significance of a contaminant

concentration above the MCLG but

below the MCL and recommended that

EPA use a longer definition of MCL

such as: ‘‘the level determined to

provide the best protection to health,

given cost and treatment feasibility’’.

The working group, however, was not

able to agree on any characterization of

the MCL beyond a minimal description

of its regulatory function. Some

members wanted to stress the safety

factors built into the MCL setting

process while others believed strongly

that whenever an MCL is set above an

MCLG the best protection to health is

not achieved. One alternative would be

to paraphrase language from the SDWA

to provide additional context for the

definitions. For example, MCLG might

be defined as ‘‘The level of a

contaminant in drinking water below

which there is no known or expected

risk to health, allowing an adequate

margin of safety.’’ MCL could then be

defined as ‘‘The highest level of a

contaminant that is allowed in drinking

water, which is set as close to the MCL

as feasible using the best available

treatment technology.’’ The Agency

requests comments on the proposed

definitions of both MCL and MCLG.

Commenters should bear in mind that

brevity and plain language are required

by the Statute for these definitions.

The NDWAC Working Group

recommended combining the

definitions of variances and exemptions

into a single definition, since in its

opinion the two terms described a single

concept. ‘‘Variances and exemptions’’

therefore are defined in the rule as

‘‘State permission not to meet an MCL

or a treatment technique under certain

conditions.’’ Some members of the

Working Group suggested adding the

phrase ‘‘provided there is no

unreasonable risk to health’’ to the

definition, in order to inform report

recipients that this is one of the

statutory conditions for receiving a
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7611

variance or exemption. EPA is

requesting comment on this suggestion.

The definitions section of the

proposed rule also includes two

definitions not mandated by the 1996

Amendments but considered necessary

by EPA to address situations likely to be

encountered by many systems. When an

MCL cannot be established, EPA may

set a treatment technique or action level.

Section 141.153(c)(3) of the proposed

rule states that when a report contains

data on a contaminant for which EPA

has set a treatment technique or an

action level, the report must define

treatment technique as ‘‘A required

process intended to reduce the level of

a contaminant in drinking water;’’ and

must define action level as ‘‘The

concentration of a contaminant which

triggers treatment or other requirement

which a water system must follow.’’

EPA notes that the use of these

definitions in the consumer confidence

reports is not meant in any way to alter

the legal and enforceable definition of

these terms.

3. Level of Detected Contaminants

Sections 1414(c)(4)(B)(iii) and (v) of

SDWA as amended establish reporting

requirements for ‘‘regulated’’ and

‘‘unregulated contaminants’’ detected in

the water purveyed by a community

water system. The Agency believes that

information on contaminants detected

by the system is the lynchpin of the

reports. This is the information which

will allow water consumers to make

educated health-related decisions based

on their personal circumstances.

Therefore it is important that the

information be as complete and accurate

as feasible without falling into the trap

of information overload.

As far as accuracy is concerned, the

Agency is aware that choosing one

number to put in the report which gives

a true representation of the water that

customers may have consumed during

the year will sometimes be difficult. The

quality of the water is subject to spatial

and temporal variability. This

variability is magnified in large systems

where blending of several sources may

occur. It is not feasible for the Agency

to lay down hard and fast rules to deal

with all instances where the quality of

the water may be variable; therefore, the

Agency is proposing a performance

standard in § 141.153(d)(1) which

requires operators to provide customers

with an accurate picture of the level of

contaminant they may have been

exposed to during the year. The

quantitative information on levels of

detected contaminants may, however,

provide only part of the picture. The

Agency expects that systems may need

to provide qualititative explanations of

water quality variations as well. These

explanations could, for example,

describe to customers the fact that warm

temperatures facilitate microbial growth

and may necessitate higher levels of

disinfectant in the water. EPA requests

comment on the usefulness of such

information.

EPA recognizes that this rule will

require water system operators to

present information on contaminants

detected at very low levels. The Agency

does not intend that operators report

levels beneath the Minimum Detection

Limits, based upon the analytic

requirements listed in 40 CFR 141

Subpart C, which are levels so low that

they are analytically invalid.

EPA believes that, in order for the

public to make well-informed health

decisions, the reports should contain

information available to the systems on

any contaminant which may have an

impact on the health of persons whether

or not monitoring for these

contaminants is currently required by

regulations promulgated under the

SDWA. While section 1414(c)(4) does

not explicitly require that the reports

contain all of this information, EPA

believes that such reporting is

authorized under both section

1414(c)(4)(B) (which states that the

contents of the report must include, but

not be limited to, certain items) and

section 1445(a)(2) (which authorizes the

Administrator to require regulated

systems to report information to the

public on unregulated contaminants).

On the other hand, the Agency does not

want inadvertently to stop systems from

performing additional voluntary

monitoring by requiring disclosure of

information the significance of which

they could not explain. Therefore the

Agency is proposing to include a

provision which strongly encourages

systems to include in the reports any

information indicating a possible health

concern from contaminants for which

EPA has proposed an NPDWR or issued

a health advisory. If, for example, a

contaminant is found at a level

exceeding a proposed MCL or a health

advisory level of concern, EPA believes

that the system should disclose this

result to its customers. On the other

hand, if the system believes that its

voluntary monitoring results are

inconclusive or insignificant from a

health standpoint, it need not report

them.

EPA proposes that the reports

address, in separate sections, (1) the

results of monitoring mandated by

regulation for both regulated and

unregulated contaminants as mandated

by section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iii)and (v), and

(2) the results of voluntary monitoring

performed by the system that has shown

a detection of radon or Cryptosporidium

or the presence of any additional

contaminant which a system elects to

include in the reports.

With respect to the manner in which

data are presented, the proposed rule

contains a number of provisions:

a. The initial report must identify the

twelve-month period that it covers.

Subsequent reports must identify and

cover successive twelve month periods,

to ensure that gaps do not exist between

periods covered by the reports.

b. Data on detected contaminants for

which monitoring is mandatory would

be displayed in a table. These data

include contaminants subject to an

MCL, action level or treatment

technique (regulated contaminants),

contaminants for which monitoring is

required by § 141.40 (unregulated

contaminants), and disinfection

byproducts and microbiological

contaminants (except Cryptosporidium)

for which monitoring is required by

§§ 141.140 and 141.142 (the information

collection rule). The Agency is not

mandating a particular format for the

table. EPA is seeking to leave the

maximum possible amount of flexibility

to drinking water systems to design

effective methods of presenting the

required data. However, the rule would

contain a number of provisions

pertaining to the manner in which the

data is presented.

If a system is allowed to monitor for certain

contaminants less often than once a year, the

report must include the date and results of

the most recent sampling and a brief

explanation (e.g. in a footnote) for why the

sample was not taken within the reporting

period (e.g., ‘‘monitoring only required once

every 3 years’’).

The MCL for detected regulated

contaminants should be presented in whole

units. EPA has recalculated the MCLs in such

units, and has incorporated them into

Appendix A of the regulation. The MCLG for

each contaminant should be expressed in the

same units as the MCL. Detections also

should be expressed in the same units. The

Agency notes that it will continue to rely on

the numbers reported to the State to comply

with the regulations to determine compliance

and undertake enforcement action if

necessary. In no case would the way in

which data is presented in the consumer

confidence reports affect an enforcement

decision on compliance with MCLs or action

levels.

The expert panel encouraged EPA to allow

community water systems to use illustrative

examples to clarify the meaning of the

detected levels (e.g., ‘‘equivalent to one drop

in a railroad tank car’’); in contrast, the

NDWAC working group believed that such

illustrations could be subject to

misinterpretation or misuse. The Agency

concluded that it would allow systems the
7612 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

flexibility to adopt such examples, but would

not encourage their use.

For contaminants subject to an NPDWR,

EPA concluded that community water

systems should be required to report ‘‘the

highest test result used to determine

compliance with an NPDWR.’’ Thus,

whenever compliance with an MCL is based

on a monthly or quarterly average, the

highest average for the year should be

included in the table. If compliance is

determined by averaging the results for

various sampling points, only the average

should be reported in the table. Several

members of the NDWAC working group and

members of the expert panel urged, instead,

that ranges of results or highest values should

be reported. Thus, when compliance is based

on an average, in addition to reporting the

average, the system would also report the

highest value detected. The advocates of this

approach noted that for some contaminants,

such as TTHMs, parts of the distribution

system may be exposed to concentrations

above the average. The Agency concluded,

however, that presentation of ranges and

highest values could be confusing. Instead

the Agency is proposing that for these

contaminants, the reports clearly indicate

that the results are based on an average and

explain what an average means. Further,

based on the NDWAC recommendations, the

Agency is proposing an exception to this

single number reporting. For MCLs such as

TTHMs for which reporting is based on a

system-wide average, and for which

substantial variation of contaminant levels

may occur within the distribution system, the

reports should disclose instances where a

significant portion (10%) of the population is

consistently exposed to a level higher than

the MCL. In such instances the reports would

have to identify the portions of the service

areas where consumers are exposed to these

higher levels and specify what these levels

are. The Agency would like specific

comments on this issue. The Agency notes

that these circumstances should not arise if

the sampling points for TTHMs have been

chosen in accordance with the regulations

and is requesting commenters to submit

specific data if they have information to the

contrary. The Agency also notes that, at this

time, this requirement would have no impact

on systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons

since they are exempt from the TTHM

requirements. The Agency is also requesting

comment on whether it is necessary for the

reports to note contaminant levels that are

averages and explain what that means for

chronic contaminants where the MCL is

based on cumulative exposure over many

years.

EPA notes that while in the case of some

regulated contaminants, water systems would

report averages rather than the single highest

level, in the case of detected unregulated

contaminants, it expects water systems to

report the highest detected level. Some

concern was raised that this single highest

level might not be representative of the water

quality, and that consumers might be better

served by putting in place instead a

performance standard for the unregulated

contaminants similar to that for the regulated

contaminants, requiring systems to provide

customers with an accurate picture of the

level of contaminants they may have been

exposed to during the year. The Agency is

requesting comment on this issue.

The proposed rule would require

community water systems to include in the

table the likely source of any detected

regulated contaminant. In general EPA is

expecting systems to describe these sources

in generic terms such as ‘‘agricultural

runoff’’, ‘‘petrochemical plants’’. In some

cases, however the system may have

information obtained though a source water

assessment which would allow the report to

be more specific. When the source is not

definitely known the system should include

in the table the generic description of major

sources derived from Appendix A. The

inclusion of this requirement was the subject

of lengthy discussion among stakeholders.

While some believe that it is important for

the public to understand that contaminants

in the finished water are often the result of

activities which are not under the control of

the water systems, others were concerned

that requiring operators, particularly of small

systems, to seek specific information would

be too burdensome. The Agency believes that

providing generic descriptions for use in

cases where a specific source is not definitely

known appropriately balances those

concerns. The Agency is requesting

comments on this requirement and

particularly on the usefulness of the generic

list and on its wording.

The proposed rule requires a community

water source that distributes water to its

customers from several raw sources which

are not blended, to include a separate column

in its table of results for each service area.

The report should also identify the service

area for each entry point into the distribution

system.

Today’s rule requires community water

systems to include specific information in

their consumer confidence reports for every

regulated contaminant detected in violation

of an MCL. This information, which must

include a clear and readily understandable

explanation of the violation, the potential

health effects, and the actions taken by the

system to address the violation, need not be

included in the table of results (though it

may be). Instead, the system may provide the

required information in a separate section on

violations and what they mean, although that

section should be clearly labeled as

addressing violations and situated close to

the table of results. The description of

potential adverse health effects included in

this section would use the relevant language

of Appendix B. A discussion of the linkages

between this proposed requirement and the

requirements for public notification is

included in Section VI of this preamble.

c. Additionally today’s rule would

require water systems to provide

information on detection of

Cryptosporidium, radon and other

currently unregulated contaminants.

Information on Cryptosporidium would be

included whether it is detected in

compliance with the ICR regulations or

through voluntary monitoring performed by

a system. Specifically, the reports must

include a summary of the monitoring results,

information on how the monitoring was

performed, and an explanation of the

significance of the results. When EPA

promulgated the ICR, it explained that its

intent in collecting these data was to gain

information that it could use in aggregate to

determine national occurrence of

Cryptosporidium and evaluate the treatment

cost implications of new regulations. The

Agency emphasized that these data should

not be used to make judgements about the

compliance of any specific water system with

drinking water standards. The Agency is not

changing this policy and remains aware that

Cryptosporidium presents difficult

measurement challenges. EPA was clear in its

preamble for the ICR (61 FR 24363, May 14,

1996) that laboratory approval criteria for the

ICR were designed to conduct national

regulatory impact analysis and that better

method performance would be needed for

individual systems to comply with future

rules. Therefore, while EPA believes that it

is appropriate for the systems to disclose

these results to their customers it is not

dictating how. The proposed rule requires

water systems that detect Cryptosporidium to

summarize the results of monitoring but is

not requiring that these data be included in

the table to give systems more flexibility

regarding how they display the information

and how they explain the significance of the

results to consumers. The rule also would

require systems to explain how the

monitoring was performed. This provision is

not meant to require systems to give detailed

explanations about laboratory methods or

sampling protocols; rather, EPA expects the

systems to provide some indication whether

raw water or finished water was sampled and

the extent of sampling. EPA requests

comments about the inclusion of these data

in the consumer confidence reports and the

appropriate format for doing so.

When a system detects radon, the Agency

is proposing that the reports must include the

results of the monitoring, information on

how the monitoring was performed, and an

explanation of the significance of the results.

EPA will provide examples in guidance of

what such an explanation might be. As with

Cryptosporidium, EPA does not expect

detailed explanations of the sampling or

laboratory methods.

When a system detects any other

unregulated contaminant, the proposed rule

would strongly encourage systems to

determine if there is a health advisory or a

proposed NPDWR for that contaminant in

order to determine whether there may be a

health concern which warrants inclusion of

the data in the consumer confidence reports.

Note that for Cryptosporidium, radon, and

any other contaminants for which monitoring

is not required, the proposed rule allows

systems the flexibility to present results

either in the table or in another section of the

report.

4. Compliance With National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations

Under section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) of

SDWA as amended, consumer

confidence reports must contain

information on compliance with
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7613

national primary drinking water

regulations, as required by the

Administrator. The statute speaks in

terms of ‘‘compliance,’’ which might be

interpreted to require only certification

of compliance/noncompliance with the

NPDWR. However, the Agency believes

it is appropriate to require reporting of

any violation of the standards in the

regulations, with the exception of

violations of MCLs, which are addressed

elsewhere in the consumer confidence

reports. The Agency requests comments

on the need to include all NPDWR

violations as listed in the 144.153(e). An

alternative would be to select only these

violations which could clearly result in

a health risk. If this alternative is

recommended by commenters, they

should include a discussion of how EPA

could differentiate such violations, and

specific suggestions for types of

violations (e.g., record-keeping) that

wouldn’t need to be reported.

The proposed rule further specifies

that the report must contain a clear and

readily understandable explanation of

the violation and its health significance.

EPA recognizes that for violations other

than MCLs and treatment techniques,

explanations of health significance will

need to be fairly general (e.g., for

violation of a monitoring requirement,

the explanation might be ‘‘Failure to

perform required monitoring may cause

contaminants with potentially adverse

health effects to go undetected’’).

Finally, the report must describe the

steps the system has taken to correct the

violation. A full discussion of the

linkage between this proposed

requirement and the public notification

requirements is included in Section VI

of this preamble.

5. Variances and Exemptions

Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) also

mandates that consumer confidence

reports must include ‘‘notice if the

system is operating under a variance or

exemption and the basis on which the

variance or exemption was granted.’’ In

order to ensure that the public has an

opportunity to fully understand the

basis for the variance or exemption and

to participate in consideration of it, the

proposed rule adds a requirement that

two additional items of information be

included in the report. First, the report

must provide the dates when the

variance or exemption was issued and

when it is due for renewal. Second, the

report must provide a status report on

the steps the system is taking to install

treatment, find alternative sources of

water, or otherwise comply with the

terms and schedules for the variance or

exemption. While the Agency is

mindful of the importance of keeping

the consumer confidence reports brief

and relatively simple, it also believes

that in the case of a variance or

exemption, the public is best served by

a complete explanation of the situation.

The Agency requests comment on an

alternate requirement which would call

for a ‘‘brief status report on compliance

with the terms of the variance or

exemption.’’

6. Additional Information

Section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires EPA’s

consumer confidence report regulations

to include a ‘‘brief and plainly worded

explanation regarding contaminants that

may reasonably be expected to be

present in drinking water, including

bottled water.’’ Although the statute

does not specify explicitly that reports

delivered to customers of community

water systems include this explanation,

the Agency concluded that otherwise

there would have been no function

served when Congress required it to be

included in the regulation. Further,

section 1414(c)(4)(B) gives the

Administrator the authority to require

that additional information be included

in the reports. The Agency is proposing

therefore that such an explanation must

be included in the reports.

Today’s proposed rule includes three

paragraphs in response to this

requirement. The first explains that

surface water and ground water provide

the source water for both tap water and

bottled water, and that both surface and

ground water dissolve naturallyoccurring minerals and radioactive

material and can pick up substances

resulting from the presence of animals

or from human activity. The second

paragraph provides a short description

of the types of contaminants that may be

present in source water. The third

paragraph explains that EPA and the

Food and Drug Administration prescribe

regulations that limit the amount of

certain contaminants in water provided

by community water systems and in

bottled water, respectively. As required

by section 1414(c)(4)(B)(ii), it further

explains that the presence of

contaminants does not necessarily

indicate that the water poses a health

risk, and indicates that the EPA Safe

Drinking Water Hotline can provide

additional information about

contaminants and health effects.

The NDWAC Working Group and the

expert panel both debated the material

at length. Some members were

concerned that the language shifted the

focus of the report from finished water

to source water. In addition, members

noted that the reports should not

suggest that water can ever be

completely free of contaminants,

because naturally occurring

contaminants are always going to be

present in some concentration. Some

commenters on the language suggested

that the description of potential

contaminants could unnecessarily alarm

customers whose water did not contain

all of the described categories of

contaminants. The NDWAC’s

recommendation was that this section of

the report should be entirely optional.

EPA believes that the statute requires

that the report include an explanation

for the presence of contaminants and

has included this requirement in

§ 141.153(g)(1). The Agency agrees with

stakeholders that the systems should be

given flexibility in the wording of the

explanation. Therefore, EPA’s proposal

includes optional language in proposed

§ 141.153(g)(1)(i),(ii) and (iii) which

systems may use to fulfill the

requirement. Alternatively,

subparagraph (iv) provides minimal

language that a system may use to fulfill

the requirement. Systems may also

develop their own language. EPA is

proposing to require that the language of

subparagraph(v) be included in all

reports since this language is mandated

by the statute in section

1414(c)(4)(B)(vi).

D. Required Health Information and

Rationale

All consumer confidence reports are

required by today’s proposed regulation

to include a statement that some people

may be more vulnerable to

contaminants in drinking water than the

general population. The statement goes

on to identify several categories of

persons who may be particularly at risk

from infections, and encourages them to

seek advice from their health providers.

It further informs people that EPA/CDC

Guidelines on appropriate means to

lessen the risk of infection from

Cryptosporidium may be obtained from

the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline

and provides the number, as required by

the 1996 Amendments. EPA is

requesting comments on the clarity and

usefulness of this statement, particularly

whether it is clear that only certain

populations are particularly at-risk from

infectious contaminants and whether

the statement is appropriate for

inclusion in all reports.

In addition to the health effects

information that must be included in

the report where there is a violation of

an MCL discussed above, the rule also

specifies language that must be included

in the reports if the system has

identified a violation of a treatment

technique. This required health

information for violation of the surface

water treatment rule describes the
7614 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

organisms that may be present in

unfiltered or inadequately treated

surface water, and presents information

about the health effects that may result

from consumption of such water. This

section also addresses acrylamide and

epichlorohydrin, which are impurities

in chemicals used in drinking water

treatment, and which are limited under

treatment techniques specified by EPA.

Required health effects language also

must be provided in consumer

confidence reports about these

contaminants, if their specified

treatment techniques are violated.

E. Report Delivery

The rule being proposed today tracks

section 1414(c) of SDWA with respect to

how the reports should be delivered to

drinking water system customers. It

requires one copy of the report to be

mailed to each customer, unless the

Governor of a State has waived the

mailing requirement and the system

serves fewer than 10,000 persons.

Systems for whom the mailing

requirements have been waived are

required to publish the report in one or

more local newspapers serving the area

in which the system is located; inform

their customers, either in the

newspapers in which the reports are

published or by other means approved

by the state, that the report will not be

mailed; and make the reports available

to the public upon request. A further

exception is carved out in the Statute for

systems serving 500 or fewer persons for

which the Governor has waived the

mailing requirements. These systems

may forego publication of the report in

a local newspaper if they provide notice

by mail, door-to-door delivery, or

posting in an appropriate location that

the report is available upon request.

The Agency has clarified the report

delivery requirements with respect to

community water systems that are in

Indian Country. Under the proposed

rule, Tribal Leaders can exercise the

same authority as State Governors to

waive the mailing requirement for

systems serving fewer than 10,000

persons, if EPA finds that the tribe is

eligible to be treated in the same manner

as a state under section 1451 of SDWA

for purposes of the authority to waive

the mailing requirements for such

systems contained in section 1414(c).

Under section 1451 (codified at 42

U.S.C. 300j–11) the Administrator of

EPA is authorized to treat Indian Tribes

in the same manner as States. Under

today’s rule, a tribe may seek eligibility

to be treated in the same manner as a

state for purposes of waiving the

mailing requirement either by applying

as part of the Tribe’s application for

primacy over the Public Water System

Program or by applying separately for

waiver authority. EPA is not requiring

tribes to have primacy over other

aspects of the Public water system

Program to receive waiver authority.

Under either option, a tribe must

demonstrate, using the procedures

outlined in 40 CFR section 142.76, that

it meets the treatment in the same

manner as a state eligibility

requirements contained in SDWA

section 1451 and 40 CFR section 142.72:

(1) federal recognition; (2) a governing

body exercising substantial

governmental duties and powers; (3)

jurisdiction; and (4) capability.

Consistent with the Agency’s 1994

‘‘Simplification Rule’’ which simplified

the tribal eligibility process, a tribe that

has been treated in the same manner as

a state for purposes of another EPA

program will not need to reestablish the

first two criteria when applying to

waiver authority. Rather, such a tribe

will only need to demonstrate that it

meets the jurisdictional and capability

requirements. For detailed guidance on

demonstrating the eligibility

requirements, see 53 FR 37396, 37398–

402 and 59 FR 64339–341. EPA

proposes to amend CFR sections 142.72

and 142.78 to include the authority to

waive the mailing requirement as a

provision for which EPA is authorized

to treat tribes in the same manner as

states. EPA anticipates that a number of

community water systems in Indian

Country may be subject to this

provision, and it is important for EPA to

provide a mechanism by which the

mailing requirement may be waived.

In areas of Indian country where EPA

has not found a tribe eligible to waive

the mailing requirement and no state

has been explicitly approved to

implement the PWS program, EPA may

waive the mailing requirement of 40

CFR § 144.155(a). EPA does not believe

it is appropriate to require Indian tribes

to seek the authority to waive the

mailing requirement because the SDWA

does not require tribes to seek such

authority and, while EPA has

streamlined the process, seeking

approval to be treated in the same

manner as a state may still be a

significant effort that Tribes may not

wish to undertake solely to obtain the

authority to waive the mailing

requirement for consumer confidence

reports. Yet, as noted above, EPA

believes that small community water

systems in Indian Country are just as

likely, if not more likely to need the

relief from the mailing requirement.

EPA is authorized under SDWA § 1451,

where it is inappropriate or

administratively infeasible to treat tribes

as identical to states for a particular

provision, to administer such provision

in a manner that will achieve the

purposes of the provision. EPA intends

to exercise that authority to waive the

mailing requirement for small systems

in Indian Country in consultation with

the Tribe to achieve the purposes of

Section 1414(c) where the relevant tribe

has not been approved to be treated in

the same manner as a state and no state

has been explicitly approved by EPA to

implement the Public Water System

program. EPA solicits comment on this

issue.

EPA considers ‘‘Indian country’’ or

‘‘Indian lands’’ to be: (a) all land within

the limits of any Indian reservation

under the jurisdiction of the United

States government, notwithstanding the

issuance of any patent, and including

rights-of-way running through the

reservation, (b) all dependent Indian

communities within the borders of the

United States whether within the

original or subsequently acquired

territory thereof, and whether within or

without the limits of a State, and (c) all

Indian allotments, the Indian titles to

which have not been extinguished,

including rights-of-way running through

the same. See 40 CFR § 144.3; see also

18 U.S.C. § 1151. EPA has used the term

‘‘Indian lands’’ in the past under SDWA,

but has defined it as ‘‘Indian country’’

as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1151. See

40 CFR § 144.3. To avoid confusion,

EPA will use the term ‘‘Indian country’’

in today’s proposed rule.

In the course of its public meetings

concerning the form and contents of the

consumer confidence report

requirements, EPA was urged by some

members of the public to require the

reports to be distributed to all

consumers of water supplied by a

particular community water system,

rather than only to customers of the

system which is the usage in section

1414(c). Advocates of the consumerrelated approach argued that, for

example, residents of apartment houses,

condominiums, or other similar living

accommodations might not be indicated

in community water system billing

records as customers, and thus would

not receive personal copies of the

reports. Rather than relying on their

own customer lists, community water

systems could obtain lists of postal

patrons, utilize so-called criss-cross

directories, use voter lists, or in some

other way obtain lists of likely

consumers of their supplied water.

While the Agency recognizes that

sending consumer confidence reports to

water system customers may not reach

every person who may have consumed

water from the system, it believes that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7615

alternative approaches may be more

efficient than mandated mailings to all

consumers. Therefore, today’s rule calls

for systems to make a ‘‘good faith’’ effort

to reach consumers who do not receive

water bills, using means recommended

by the Director of the State Drinking

Water Program. Such means may

include posting the report on the

Internet, publishing it in subdivision

newsletters, or asking landlords or

apartment managers to post the report in

a conspicuous place in their building.

The Agency specifically requests

comments on this issue.

Under § 141.155(b) of the rule, a

community water system must send one

copy of its report to the Director of the

State Drinking Water Program, in States

with primary enforcement authority.

This provision will help to ensure that

reports are prepared and distributed

annually, since the report submitted to

the State Director must be accompanied

by a written certification that the report

has been distributed to the system’s

customers and that the information

contained in the report is correct and

consistent with the compliance

monitoring data previously submitted to

the State. States will have the

opportunity to set up State

clearinghouses of consumer confidence

reports, either as a State function or

through a designated third party, so that

interested persons could obtain copies

of consumer confidence reports from

those clearinghouses. At a minimum,

states that do not set up a clearinghouse

must maintain a list of the phone

numbers of community water systems

operators to assist interested persons in

obtaining reports.

Section 141.155(c) of the rule requires

community water systems to mail a

copy of their consumer confidence

report to any other agency in the State

with jurisdiction over community water

systems. This could include public

utilities commissions, if they have

jurisdiction over rate making; public

health agencies, which may either have

primary jurisdiction over water systems

or share that jurisdiction with other

agencies; State environmental agencies;

and State agricultural or natural

resource agencies, if they have

jurisdiction over water rights, wells, or

other aspects of the system’s source

water. This section also authorizes the

State Director to designate any other

agencies or clearinghouses to which he

can direct copies of the report to be sent.

Section 141.155(e) specifies that all

systems, regardless of size, are required

to make their consumer confidence

report available to the public upon

request. The rule does not specify the

means that systems must use, leaving

them free to mail copies of reports, send

them by telefax, or place copies on an

Internet site. However, EPA believes

that the means chosen must be practical

from the standpoint of all potential

persons requesting copies of the report.

Thus, placing a copy of the report on the

Internet but refusing to mail a copy to

a person without Internet access would

be contrary to the intent of this

provision of the rule. The Agency is also

interested in getting comments from

States on their ability or interest in

placing reports on the Internet to

simplify access to the reports for the

general public.

Today’s rule does not require that the

report be delivered in languages other

than English. However, § 141.153,

discussed above, does require systems

in communities with a large proportion

of non-English speaking residents to

include information in the appropriate

language in their reports regarding the

importance of the report or to offer

additional information in that language.

EPA has been encouraged to require

posting of the consumer confidence

reports on the Internet. However, the

Agency is uncertain whether all

community water systems possess the

necessary means to set up and maintain

an Internet site or, in some case, even

to access the Internet; and whether

community water system customers

would find such posting to be useful.

Therefore, the Agency is requesting

comments on this subject, as described

below.

F. Special State Implementation and

Primacy Requirements, and Rationale

As discussed in Section III.B., EPA is

proposing that existing systems must

deliver an initial report to customers

within 14 months of the publication of

the final rule in the Federal Register.

New systems must deliver an initial

report within 18 months after beginning

water delivery service. See proposed

section 141.152. Since EPA considers

implementation of this rule to be a

requirement for a State to obtain or

maintain primary enforcement

responsibility under SDWA Section

1413, each State with primacy must

adopt the requirements of this Subpart

(40 CFR 141 Subpart O) no later than

two years after the final rule is

published in the Federal Register. See

proposed section 142.16(f). As a result,

within several years, all primacy States

should have primary responsibility for

implementation of this rule. During any

time period that this rule is effective but

that a State does not have either interim

or final primary enforcement

responsibility for this rule, EPA will

implement this rule directly in that

State.

EPA is proposing that primacy States

may adopt alternative requirements

concerning the form and content of

these reports through notice and

comment rulemaking. EPA is proposing

that the alternative requirements

provide the same type and amount of

information as required by the Federal

regulations. Under the SDWA, a State in

order to maintain primacy must adopt

requirements which are no less stringent

than the Federal regulations. In the case

of consumer confidence reports, EPA is

proposing to interpret stringency as type

and amount of information. State

members of the Working Group were

concerned that this interpretation would

limit the authority given to the states by

Congress to develop alternative

requirements with respect to form and

content of the reports. EPA notes that

this proposal contains few requirements

not specifically mandated by the

Statute. However, the Statute provides

that the content of the report as

prescribed by EPA’s regulations need

not be limited to the statutory elements.

EPA has exercised this discretion in a

few instances. For example, the rule

would require information on the source

of detected contaminant, and a warning

on infectious agents. The Agency’s

interpretation of stringency would

require state regulations to include the

provisions for information on

contaminant sources and the health

warning to susceptible populations.

EPA is requesting comments on whether

any information beyond that specifically

required by the Statute should be

mandatory for inclusion in state

regulations. Under the proposed rule,

States already would have flexibility in

specifying how the required information

is presented. For example, definitions of

terms, choice of units for the MCLs, or

health effect language could be altered

by the states. These changes would have

to be approved by EPA in the context of

primacy revisions.

The proposed rule contains a

requirement that each State with

primary enforcement authority make

consumer confidence reports submitted

to it available to the public upon request

or maintain a list of telephone numbers

for operators of community water

systems that could be used by the public

to request copies of reports directly from

the water systems. Representatives from

States expressed concern over the lack

of resources in some states to serve as

a central distribution point for the

reports, and asserted that neither

requirement was necessary, since States

already maintain telephone numbers for

the systems in the State, and State
7616 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Freedom of Information procedures are

available if necessary to obtain access to

documents held by the State. The

Agency is requesting comments on

whether either requirement should be

incorporated into the regulation.

G. Health Effect Language and Rationale

The SDWA Amendments require EPA

to develop and include in the consumer

confidence report regulations ‘‘brief

statements in plain language regarding

the health concerns that resulted in

regulation of each regulated

contaminant.’’ These statements are

provided for use by community water

systems in their reports as language that

EPA believes accurately describes those

health concerns that customers of the

water system might appropriately have

if they consume water containing

contaminants at concentrations above

the MCL.

The Agency has placed the brief

statements on health concerns in an

appendix to the regulations, because

most community systems are in

compliance with the regulations and

will not need to refer to this language.

However, the Agency considers the

language of the statements to be

mandatory for use in the consumer

confidence reports, unless individual

states choose to alter the language for

their own regulations.

EPA examined a number of sources

that could be used as the basis for the

brief statements on health concerns, and

held extensive discussions with the

NDWAC working group and with its

expert panel on the topic. The two

groups looked primarily at the language

developed by EPA for public

notification purposes, (§ 141.32) which

emphasizes how the MCLs were

developed, and EPA’s contaminantspecific fact sheets, which EPA

distributes through the SDWA Hotline.

The fact sheets convey more

information on expected health effects

on humans. In general, the language in

Appendix B being proposed today is a

distillation of information contained in

EPA fact sheets which are included in

the docket for this rulemaking.

The expert panel urged EPA to avoid

scientific jargon in preparing the brief

statements. The panel also stressed the

importance of communicating

effectively that MCLs are set using a

conservative approach. Some members

of the expert panel also stated that

exceedence of an MCL does not

necessarily lead to health effects. EPA

believes that the proposed language

conveys appropriate risk information by

indicating that chronic adverse health

effects ‘‘could’’ result from exposures

‘‘in excess’’ or ‘‘well in excess’’ of the

MCL ‘‘over many years.’’ In cases where

human or animal exposure to high doses

have indicated that a contaminant is a

possible carcinogen, the language

indicates that people who drink water

containing the contaminant at levels

above the MCL over many years ‘‘may

have an increased risk of getting

cancer.’’ EPA believes that the proposed

health effects language accurately

conveys what is known about the risk

from these contaminants, but is

sensitive to the concern that some water

system customers may interpret the

language as indicating a significantly

higher level of incremental risk than

would actually result from exposures at

the levels that are likely to occur. EPA

is thus seeking comment on whether

there are other ways to communicate to

water system customers the degree of

health risk they may face as a result of

MCL violations.

The expert panel further

recommended that the statements

indicate whether human or animal

studies formed the basis for identifying

adverse health effects. However, EPA is

not sure whether this information is

useful to most customers in evaluating

the health significance of MCL

violations, and is mindful of the need to

keep the language brief and easy to

understand. Thus, the proposed

language does not indicate whether the

potential health effects were identified

through human or animal studies. EPA

is requesting comment on this issue.

More generally, EPA is requesting

comments on whether the proposed

language accurately summarizes the

health concerns associated with each

contaminant, whether the proposed

language accurately reflects the risk

assessments and health analyses

underlying the regulations of each

contaminant and whether the language

adequately informs consumers of

relevant health effects. EPA requests

commenters to provide alternative

health effects language and the rationale

for such alternative language. The

Agency itself will continue to explore

the adequacy of the proposed health

effects language for accurately and

appropriately communicating

information about risk. EPA also

requests comments on the fact sheets

and their accuracy in summarizing the

health effects of regulated contaminants

and whether, as an alternative to the

language of Appendix B, systems should

be allowed to simply enclose an

approved EPA fact sheet to provide

health effects information.

EPA is particularly interested in the

language proposed for contaminants

which present a special risk to pregnant

women or children. Several

stakeholders have advocated requiring

all consumer confidence reports to

include language alerting consumers to

the dangers posed to pregnant women

and children by certain contaminants.

For example, nitrate, lead, and certain

non-specified pesticides have been

identified as possibilities for general

information on risk. The Agency

believes that inclusion of such a

warning in all reports may not be

warranted but plans to reconsider this

issue for the final rule and is requesting

comments on appropriate courses of

action. The Agency notes that the MCL

for nitrates and the action level for lead

have been established at levels

protective of these at-risk populations.

The health effects language included in

Appendix B reflects the special risk that

these contaminants may cause. Most

importantly, EPA’s public notification

regulations require immediate

notification and explanation of health

effects for violations of these standards,

including impacts on pregnant women

and children. EPA does not believe that

the consumer confidence reports are

adequate for addressing these risks

because they will not generally be

received soon enough. Nevertheless,

violations of these standards will also be

included in the reports. EPA is

specifically requesting comments on the

language in Appendix B. With regard to

pesticides and other contaminants EPA

is interested in information and data

that commenters may have on the need

for a special warning for pregnant

women and children. EPA requests that

commenters submit such information

and data to the agency. EPA is also

requesting comments on health effect

language to be included in the consumer

confidence reports for 3 regulated

contaminants detected below the MCL

(see Section IV.1 of this preamble).

Commenters are also invited to consider

this issue within the context of their

response to the comments requested in

Section IV.1.

Issues regarding the linkage between

the language of Appendix B and the

public notification requirements are

discussed in Section VI of this

preamble.

IV. Additional Requests for Public

Comments

Throughout the preceding exposition,

EPA has requested comment on various

issues. Following are two more issues

which did not fit cleanly into the

discussion above and on which EPA

would appreciate specific suggestions

and comments.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7617

1. Health Information on Additional

Contaminants

The 1996 Amendments authorize the

Administrator to require language

describing health concerns to be

included in reports for ‘‘not more than

3 regulated contaminants’’ other than

those detected at levels above the MCL.

This provision was discussed at length

during the working group meetings.

Some members of the NDWAC working

group strongly encouraged the Agency

to require health effect information for

total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), nitrate,

and arsenic, even if they were not

detected at levels above their respective

MCLs, because of their question

concerning the protectiveness of the

MCLs. Other commenters argued that

providing health effects descriptions for

chemicals detected at concentrations

below their MCLs would be confusing to

report recipients. The NDWAC

recommended that the Administrator

not avail herself of this authority at this

time.

The Agency believes that it is

important to use the authority provided

by the statute in a judicious manner.

Therefore it is requesting comments on

the following alternatives, any of which

may be included in the final rule.

One option would be to require health

effects language whenever a regulated

contaminant, for which EPA has

proposed to lower the MCL or

promulgated a revised MCL for which

the effective date has not yet occurred,

is detected at a level above the lower

level. The immediate impact of this

option would be that systems which

detect TTHMs above the proposed

revised MCL of 80 mg/l would have to

include the language of Appendix B

describing the health effects of TTHMs

in their reports. The Agency would then

consider, as it proposes additional

revised MCLS, whether health effect

language for these contaminants should

be included in the consumer confidence

reports. These possible inclusions

would be discussed in the preamble to

these future rulemakings and, where

appropriate, a direct final rule could be

issued to require their inclusion in the

reports prior to the promulgation of the

new standard. A likely candidate for

future requirements under this scheme

would be arsenic.

Another option would be to select 3

carcinogens for which the MCL allows

a risk level in the range of 10¥4 to 10¥5.

Candidates on this list include:

Contaminant Risk level

Carbon tetrachloride ............... 2×10¥5

1,2-Dichloroethane ................. 1×10¥5

Vinyl chloride .......................... 1×10¥4

Contaminant Risk level

Chlordane ............................... 7×10¥5

1,2-Dichloropropane ............... 1×10¥5

Ethylene dibromide ................ 1.25×10¥4

PCBs ...................................... 1×10¥4

Dichloromethane .................... 1×10¥5

Dioxin ..................................... 1.3×10¥4

Hexachlorobenzene ............... 5×10¥5

PAHs ...................................... 1×10¥5

The Agency is requesting comments

on which of these contaminants would

be the most significant from a health

standpoint if detected in the finished

water. The Agency could rank these

contaminants and systems would have

to report their top three detects or select

3 contaminants outright. The Agency is

also requesting comments on whether it

should select a threshold for these

contaminants such as detection of 50%

or greater of the MCL below which no

health effect language would be

necessary.

2. Linkage With the Public Notification

Requirements

EPA is currently revising its

requirements for public notification. A

water supplier triggers these

requirements when it fails to comply

with a MCL, treatment technique, or

other NPDWR (i.e., monitoring and

treatment procedures), or is subject to a

variance or exemption under section

1415. Current regulations [40 CFR

141.32] require public notification:

—by electronic media within 72 hours

if the violation represents an acute

health risk;

—by newspaper within two weeks and

by mail within 45 days if the water

system violates a MCL or treatment

technique; and

—by mail and newspaper within 90

days if the water system violates a

monitoring or testing standard.

Under the 1996 SDWA Amendments,

EPA must revise these standards so that

consumers receive quicker notification

in the event of a possible acute health

risk, and so that water suppliers have

more time (up to one year) to notify

customers of violations with less

immediate effects. The statutory

requirements for these revisions would

allow water systems to incorporate their

reporting on less serious violations: (I)

in the first bill (if any) prepared after the

date of the occurrence of the violation,

(II) in an annual report issued not later

than 1 year after the date of the

occurrence of the violation, or (III) by

mail or direct delivery as soon as

practicable, but not later than 1 year

after the occurrence of the violation

[section 1414(c)(2)(D)(i)].

The option exists for a linkage

between the rule proposed today and

those that EPA will revise for public

notification. EPA recognizes that the

inclusion of some public notice

elements in annual consumer

confidence reports could mean a

significant savings of time and resources

for some water systems, and is mindful

of its responsibility under the

Paperwork Reduction Act to avoid

unnecessarily duplicative reporting

requirements. On the other hand, EPA

does not want to minimize the

seriousness of any violation, and

believes that it is essential that

consumers know if and when their

water supplier has failed to comply with

drinking water regulations.

In trying to balance the issues noted

above, EPA requests public comment on

the following issues.

Regarding violations of MCLs, action

levels, and treatment techniques, the

Agency realizes that today’s rule would

duplicate the current public notification

requirements by requiring inclusion of

essentially the same information as is

currently required in § 141.32(d) with

the exception of the health effect

language. The proposed rule would

require a clear and readily

understandable explanation of the

violation, any potential adverse health

effects, and the steps the system has

taken to correct the violation. This

could be helpful to consumers who

might have overlooked or forgotten

about the regular public notification.

One issue on which EPA is specifically

requesting comment is whether this

health effect language would be

appropriate for public notification

requirements, since having a single set

of health effects explanations would

facilitate integration of the two rules.

The Agency notes that when members

of the working group discussed the

health effect language they did not

discuss it in that context. Under the

current regulations any of these

violations would have already been

reported to the public and the consumer

confidence reports were envisioned as a

reminder of what customers had already

been told. Further the working group

was mindful of the limited amount of

information which could be included in

consumer confidence reports on any

specific issue. However, EPA has started

the process of revising the public

notification requirements pursuant to

the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA and

this issue has been raised. Therefore,

EPA requests comments on the

following options:

As this rule is promulgated the

Agency would replace the health effect

language in § 141.32 with the language
7618 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

proposed in Appendix B of today’s

proposal so that the same language

would be included in consumer

confidence reports and public

notifications.

The Agency would not modify the

public notification language until it

promulgated revised regulations for

public notification but the language

proposed today would form the core of

the public notification language and be

expanded as seen fit for the purpose of

public notification.

Today’s proposal is similarly

redundant with the current public

notification requirements for violations

of other NPDWRs (such as monitoring

and reporting). A less redundant

alternative would allow water systems

to simply note a violation of an NPDWR

and to attach to their consumer

confidence report a copy of the notice

issued at the time of the violation.

Finally, since SDWA allows public

notice for less serious violations within

one year, there might be some violations

which systems would need to report

exclusively in the consumer confidence

report. These could even include MCL

violations for some contaminants with

strictly chronic health effects. This

would allow community water systems

to put out fewer mailings. Besides

saving resources, a reduced number of

mailings might encourage consumers to

read those notices that they do receive.

This option however would only be

available to community water systems.

Non-community water systems who are

not subject to these requirements would

have to issue a public notification for all

violations.

If water suppliers were to report

certain violations only in the consumer

confidence report, EPA would add

language along the following lines to the

proposed regulation:

—[at § 141.153(d)(4)(ii)] If the report is

used to satisfy the requirements of

section 1414(c)(2)(D) of SDWA, the

report must include information on [a

subset to be determined of] violations

which have occurred within the last

12 months.

—[at § 141.155(d)] Except when the

report is used to satisfy the

requirement of section 1414(c)(2)(D)

of SDWA, the Governor of a State or

the Tribal Leader can waive the

mailing requirement of § 144.155(a)

for community water systems serving

fewer than 10,000 persons.

The Agency is requesting comments

on this option. Particularly the Agency

would welcome input on violations

which systems could appropriately

report exclusively in the consumer

confidence reports. These comments

will be used to inform both this

rulemaking and the public notification

revisions rulemaking.

V. Cost of Rule

EPA has estimated the costs of

complying with the requirements of the

proposed rule in terms of fixed costs

and variable costs. Fixed costs include

those costs that a community water

system must incur to comply with the

requirements regardless of how many

copies of the report it must deliver.

These costs include the costs associated

with reviewing the regulations,

collecting data regarding monitoring

results and MCL violations, preparing

the technical content of the consumer

confidence report in a format suitable

for distribution, identifying the

recipients of the reports, and providing

instructions about report production.

Variable costs are costs that increase or

decrease along with the number of

consumer confidence reports to be

delivered. These costs include costs of

producing the reports (costs of paper,

photocopying or printing, and labels),

and inserting the reports in bills or

otherwise delivering them. Based on its

analysis, the Agency estimates the total

fixed and variable annualized cost of

delivering a report to every customer

served by all community water systems

nationally (except for California, which

already requires notices similar to the

consumer confidence reports required

by the proposed rule) is $20,286,113.

This includes $7,295,575 in fixed costs

and $12,990,538 in variable costs. Table

V.1 gives a breakdown of costs by

system size and also shows state and

federal costs.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7619

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
7620 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

For more information about the costs

of the rule and how EPA estimated

them, see the Regulatory Flexibility

Screening Analysis and the Supporting

Statement for the EPA Information

Collection Request (ICR #1832.01) that

EPA submitted for OMB approval under

the Paperwork Reduction Act. EPA is

requesting comment on its cost

estimates and methodology.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of the recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

because it may raise novel legal or

policy issues. The rule represents the

first time that water systems will be

required to submit important

information to customers regarding the

quality of their drinking water on a

routine basis. Therefore, EPA submitted

this action to OMB for review.

Substantive changes made in response

to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. General

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA), requires EPA to consider

explicitly the effect of proposed

regulations on small entities. The

Agency assesses the impact of the

proposed rule on small entities and

considers regulatory alternatives if a

rule has a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq., an agency must prepare an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)

describing the economic impact of a

rule on small entities as part of

rulemaking. However, under section

605(b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that

the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, EPA is not

required to prepare an IRFA.

EPA has determined that this

proposed rule will affect small water

utilities, since it is applicable to all

community water systems, including

small systems. However, EPA has

estimated the impact of the proposed

rule and concluded that the impact of

the rule will not be significant.

Therefore, the Administrator is today

certifying, pursuant to section 605(b) of

the RFA, that this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The basis for this certification is as

follows: the annualized compliance

costs of the rule represent less than 1%

of sales for small businesses and less

than 1% of revenues for small

governments. No small not-for-profit

enterprises were identified as

community water systems. For this

analysis EPA selected systems serving

10,000 or fewer persons as the criterion

for small water systems and therefore as

the definition of small entity for the

purposes of the RFA. This is the cut-off

level specified by Congress in this

provision for small system flexibility in

delivery of the reports. Because this

does not correspond to the definition

established under the RFA, EPA has

consulted with the Small Business

Administration (SBA) on the use of this

alternative definition (see next section).

Further information supporting this

certification is available in the public

docket for this rule.

Since the Administrator is certifying

this rule, the Agency did not prepare an

IRFA. Nevertheless, the Agency has

conducted outreach to address the

small-entity impacts that do exist and to

gather information. The Agency also has

structured the rule to avoid significant

impacts on a substantial number of

small entities by providing flexibility to

community water systems in the design

of consumer confidence reports; offering

them the choice to use a simplified

format to prepare the reports;

incorporating procedures by which

small systems can make reports

available to their customers by methods

other than mailing; and by limiting the

absolute requirement for distribution of

reports to water system customers rather

than consumers. Further the Agency

notes that in general the regulations

issued under SDWA place a lesser

burden on small systems, for example,

the TTHM and information collection

rules do not apply to small systems. For

most regulated contaminants, small

systems have to collect fewer samples.

Therefore the small systems operators

will have significantly less information

to report in consumer confidence

reports.

2. Use of Alternative Definition

As explained above, for this

assessment of impact on small entities,

EPA has defined a small entity as a

public water system (PWS) that serves

10,000 or fewer persons. PWSs affected

by this proposal would include PWSs

owned and operated by governmental

jurisdictions as well as those that are

privately owned. As indicated above,

there are no PWSs owned by not-forprofit organizations.

EPA proposes to define ‘‘small entity’’

for purposes of its regulatory flexibility

assessments under the RFA for all future

drinking water regulations in the same

way. By using this definition for the

regulatory flexibility assessments, EPA

will better reflect the realities of the

drinking water industry. Furthermore,

this definition is consistent with

specific direction from Congress in

several provisions of the 1996

amendments that provide relief from

regulatory requirements for PWSs

serving 10,000 or fewer people.

As previously described, the RFA

requires an agency, whenever it

publishes a notice of general

rulemaking, to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis that describes the

impact of a rule on small entities unless

the agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. 5

U.S.C. §§ 603(a), 604(a) and 605(b).

Under the RFA, the term ‘‘small entity’’

means ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction’’ and ‘‘small

organization.’’ These terms are further

defined by the Act.

In the case of a ‘‘small business,’’ the

term has the same meaning as a ‘‘small

business concern’’ under section 3 of

the Small Business Act. ‘‘Small

governmental jurisdiction’’ means the

government of cities, counties, towns

and villages, among others, with a

population of less than 50,000. A ‘‘small

organization’’ is any not-for-profit

enterprise that is independently owned

and operated. 5 U.S.C. § 601 (3), (4) &

(5).

The RFA authorizes an agency to

establish an alternative definition for

these terms after an opportunity for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7621

public comment. Additionally, in the

case of an alternative definition of

‘‘small business,’’ an agency must

consult with the Office of Advocacy of

the Small Business Administration

(SBA) concerning such alternative

definition.

EPA is today asking for public

comment on its intention to define

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’

for purposes of the regulatory flexibility

assessments for its drinking water

regulations as a PWS serving 10,000 or

fewer people. The Agency has consulted

with the SBA Office of Advocacy. The

Office of Advocacy agreed with the

Agency’s choice of systems serving less

than 10,000 persons for an alternative

small business definition for this

rulemaking, and plans to revisit this

issue with EPA in future rulemakings

under SDWA.

The following provides additional

explanation why the Agency proposes

to use a different definition from that

which would generally be applicable

under the RFA.

The alternate definition will focus the

Agency’s regulatory flexibility analysis

on those PWS most likely to experience

an economic hardship associated with

complying with new drinking water

regulations to be proposed under the

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). There

are several compelling factual, statutory

and programmatic reasons to support

the proposed definition.

SBA has by regulation defined small

business concerns. SBA regulations

typically define a small business in

terms of either total revenues or total

employees. Under SBA’s definition, a

‘‘small,’’ privately-owned water utility

would be one with revenues of less than

$5,000,000. Using this definition,

‘‘small’’ privately-owned water systems

would include systems that serve up to

approximately 40,000 people. Ninetyeight percent of PWSs serve populations

of 10,000 or fewer. The average annual

revenue for a system in this class size

is less than $600,000.

The Agency has concluded that

defining a ‘‘small entity’’ for RFA

purposes as a PWS that serve 10,000 or

fewer persons is both more reflective of

the small water systems in the water

supply industry and will provide a more

meaningful analysis of those entities

likely to have the most significant

economic impacts as a result of drinking

water regulations. It is the EPA’s view

that a population of 40,000 or fewer (or

a private PWS with annual revenue of

$5,000,000 or less) is not an appropriate

criterion under the drinking water

program for differentiating private small

entities from larger ones. Using such a

yardstick would not distinguish PWSs

that have stronger technical expertise

and revenue sources from those that do

not. Using data from EPA’s Community

Water Supply Survey, a private

community water system with revenues

of $5 million would correspond to a

system that serves more than 40,000

people. By contrast, community water

systems that serve between 3,300 and

10,000 have a median revenue of

$605,000. As a result, EPA believes it is

reasonable to conclude that in virtually

all circumstances, systems that serve

10,000 or fewer people have annual

revenues well below $5 million. Given

the economies of scale, the per family

cost of system compliance with national

drinking water regulations will be

higher for systems serving populations

of 10,000 or fewer because a smaller

group of people will be paying for an

inelastic set of regulatory requirements.

Thus, the proposed definition will focus

the Agency’s resources on the needs and

concerns of the systems that really need

the assistance.

In addition to the fact that the

proposed alternative definition of

‘‘small business’’ better reflects the

reality of this industry, the definition is

consistent both with Congressional

direction for relief to small systems as

well as EPA’s historic regulatory

practice. As part of the 1996 Safe

Drinking Water Act Amendments,

Congress expressly addressed the issue

of small system size. Reflecting the same

concerns that underlie the RFA,

Congress recognized that PWSs below a

certain size may have greater difficulty,

for economic and technical reasons, in

complying with the public health

provisions of the SDWA than larger

systems. Consequently, the 1996

amendments specifically provide that

for systems serving under 10,000, the

Administrator may allow alternative

treatment technologies, modified

monitoring schedules, and variances

from maximum contaminant levels.

Congress also provided that the

Administrator may consider additional

flexibility for systems that serve 3,300

people or fewer. Specifically, the

Administrator may grant extensions of

temporary exemptions from compliance

with specific drinking water standards

so long as the exemption does not result

in an unreasonable risk to health. And,

as discussed previously, the SDWA

provisions on which this proposed rule

are based provide still an additional

level of flexibility in the report

distribution requirements to systems

serving 500 or fewer persons.

EPA has historically recognized that

smaller systems have financial and

technical difficulty in meeting Federal

drinking water standards. As a result of

this concern, the Agency’s regulations

have in some cases treated systems

serving 10,000 or fewer customers

differently. For example, in 1979, EPA

issued regulations for one group of

disinfection by-products (total

trihalomethanes or TTHM) that

exempted systems serving 10,000 or

fewer persons. In 1994, EPA proposed

the Stage 1 Disinfection/Disinfection

By-Products rule, that provided systems

serving 10,000 or fewer with at least 24

months longer than larger system to

comply with the regulation depending

on the system type. EPA routinely

evaluates the economic impacts of a

proposed drinking water regulation on

public water systems (both publicly and

privately owned) serving 10,000 or

fewer people. EPA has specifically

focused on this subgroup in the

Disinfection Byproducts Stage 1, the

Interim Enhanced Surface Water

Treatment Rule and the Total Coliform

Rule.

The Agency will be proposing a

number of regulations over the next five

years to meet its new SDWA obligations.

The use of a single definition for

purposes of the regulatory impact

analysis for small business, small

governmental jurisdiction, and small

organization should decrease confusion

for the regulated community and

facilitate communication.

The Agency is interested in receiving

comments on the use of this alternative

definition of small entity.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this rule have been

submitted for approval to OMB under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1832.01) and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740. The information

collection requirements are not effective

until OMB approves them.

This information is being collected in

order to fulfill the statutory

requirements of section 114(c)(4) of the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments

of 1996 (Public Law 104–182) enacted

August 6, 1996. Responses are

mandatory.

The burden to the regulated

community is based on the cost of the

rule discussed under section V. The

burden to community water systems is

459,505 hours at an annual cost of

$20,286,113. The estimated number of
7622 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

respondents is 47,040 community water

systems. The frequency of responses is

annual. The average burden per

response is 9.5 hours. For additional

information on burden to water systems

by size category, see Table V.1 above.

The annual burden to EPA and state

primacy agencies over three years is

based on 3 elements: preparing reports

for some small community water

systems, receiving and reviewing

reports, and filing reports. EPA

estimates the annual burden incurred by

implementing agencies for activities

associated with the proposed

regulations to be approximately 98,230

hours at an annual cost of $2,784,692.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal Agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing way to comply with any

previous applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington,

D.C. 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW, Washington, D.C.

20503, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer

for EPA.’’ Include ICR number 1832.01

in any correspondence.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership

Executive Order 12875, ‘‘Enhancing

Intergovernmental Partnerships,’’

October 26, 1993, requires EPA to

consult with State, tribal, and local

entities in the development of rules that

will affect them, and to document for

OMB review the issues raised and how

the issues were addressed. As described

in Section II of the Supplementary

Information above, EPA held extensive

meetings with a wide variety of State,

tribal, and local representatives, who

provided meaningful and timely input

in the development of the proposed

rule. Summaries of the meetings have

been included in the public docket for

this rulemaking.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement including a cost-benefit

analysis, for any proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal Mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful, timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates and

informing, educating and advising small

governments on compliance with the

regulatory requirements.

Because this rule is not estimated to

impose annual costs of $100 million or

more on State, local, and tribal

governments, or on the private sector,

EPA is not required to prepare an

unfunded mandate statement. This rule

will establish requirements that affect

small community water systems. EPA

does not believe at this time that these

requirements will significantly affect the

systems or the governments that operate

them. However, EPA is requesting

comment on the issue. The Agency has

already consulted with representatives

of small governments that may be

affected by the rule and will continue to

do so prior to promulgation of the final

rule. If EPA determines that the

requirements may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, the

Agency will prepare a small government

agency plan as required.

F. Environmental Justice

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), The

Agency has considered environmental

justice related issues with regard to the

potential impacts of this action on the

environmental and health conditions in

low-income and minority communities.

The Agency believes that two of today’s

proposed requirements will be

particularly beneficial to these

communities. One is that community

water systems must include information

in language other than English if a

significant number of the population

does not speak English. The other is that

systems must make a good faith effort to

reach consumers who are not bill paying

customers.

G. Risk to Children Analysis

Under the Executive Order entitled

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Risks and Safety Risks,’’

dated April 21, 1997, EPA must ensure

that its policies, programs, activities,

and standards address environmental

and safety risks to children. Every

regulatory action submitted to OMB for

review under Executive Order 12866

must include information that evaluates

the environmental health and safety

effects of the planned regulation on

children and explains why the planned

regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by the

Agency.

The proposed regulation on consumer

confidence reports addresses risks to

children from contaminants in drinking

water. The health effects language

provided in Appendix B of the proposed

rule identifies risks to infants and

children from drinking water containing

lead, nitrate, or nitrite in excess of

specified levels. EPA is specifically

requesting comments on this language

and solicits information that could lead

to inclusion of similar language for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7623

violations of other contaminants

particularly pesticides.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, the Agency is required to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory and procurement activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) which are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. Where available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards are not used by

EPA, the Act requires the Agency to

provide Congress, through the Office of

Management and Budget, an

explanation of the reasons for not using

such standards. Because this proposal

does not involve or require the use of

any technical standards, EPA does not

believe that this Act is applicable to this

rule. Moreover, EPA is unaware of any

voluntary consensus standards relevant

to this rulemaking. Therefore, even if

the Act were applicable to this kind of

rulemaking, EPA does not believe that

there are any ‘‘available or potentially

applicable’’ voluntary consensus

standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and

142

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Chemicals, Indian-lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Radiation

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water supply.

Dated: February 10, 1998.

Carol W. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Environmental Protection

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts

141 and 142 as follows:

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 141

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

2. Subpart O is proposed to be added

to read as follows:

Subpart O—Consumer Confidence Reports

Sec.

141.151 Purpose and applicability of this

subpart.

141.152 Effective dates.

141.153 Content of the reports.

141.154 Required health information.

141.155 Report delivery.

Appendix A to Subpart O of Part 141—

Regulated Contaminants

Appendix B to Subpart O of Part 141—Health

Effect Language

Subpart O—Consumer Confidence

Reports

§ 141.151 Purpose and applicability of this

subpart.

(a) This subpart establishes the

minimum requirements for the content

of annual reports that community water

systems must deliver to their customers.

These reports must contain information

on the quality of the water delivered by

the systems and characterize the risks (if

any) from exposure to contaminants in

the drinking water in an accurate and

understandable manner.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of

§ 141.3, this subpart applies only to

community water systems.

(c) For the purpose of this subpart,

customers are defined as billing units or

hook-ups to which water is delivered by

a community water system.

(d) A State that has primary

enforcement responsibility may adopt

by rule, after notice and comment,

alternative requirements for the form

and content of the reports. The

alternative requirements must provide

the same type and amount of

information as required by §§ 141.153

and 141.154.

§ 141.152 Effective dates.

(a) The Regulations in this Subpart

shall take effect on [date 30 days after

publication of final rule in the Federal

Register].

(b) Existing community water systems

must deliver the first report by [date 14

months after publication of final rule in

the Federal Register] and annually

thereafter.

(c) New community water systems

must deliver their first report within 18

months of the date they begin delivering

water to customers and annually

thereafter.

§ 141.153 Content of the reports.

(a) Each community water system

must provide to its customers an annual

report that contains the information

specified in this section and § 141.154.

(b) Information on the source of the

water delivered. (1) Each report must

identify the source(s) of the water

delivered by the community water

system by providing information on:

(i) The type of the water: e.g. surface

water, groundwater; and

(ii) The commonly used name (if any)

and location of the body (or bodies) of

water.

(2) If a source water assessment has

been completed, the report must notify

consumers of the availability of this

information and the means to obtain it.

(c) Definitions. (1) Each report must

include the following definitions:

(i) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

or MCLG: The level of a contaminant in

drinking water below which there is no

known or expected risk to health.

(ii) Maximum Contaminant Level or

MCL: The highest level of a contaminant

that is allowed in drinking water.

(2) A report for a community water

system which has been granted a

variance or an exemption must include

the following definition:

Variances and Exemptions: State

permission not to meet an MCL or a

treatment technique under certain

conditions.

(3) A report which contains data on a

contaminant for which EPA has set a

treatment technique or an action level

must include the following definitions:

(i) Treatment Technique: A required

process intended to reduce the level of

a contaminant in drinking water.

(ii) Action Level: The concentration of

a contaminant which triggers treatment

or other requirement which a water

system must follow.

(d) Level of detected contaminants. (1)

Each report must contain relevant

information to provide customers with

an accurate picture of the level of

contaminants they may have been

exposed to during the year taking into

account such factors as seasonal

variations that produce changes in water

quality.

(2) The first report must identify the

12-month period during which the data

was collected. Each report thereafter

must cover and identify a successive 12-

month period.

(3) Each report must contain a

discrete table depicting the data

specified below. Any additional

monitoring results which a community

water system chooses to include in its

report must be displayed separately.

(i) The data must be derived from data

collected to comply with EPA and State

monitoring and analytical requirements

for:

(A) contaminants subject to an MCL,

action level or treatment technique

(regulated contaminants);

(B) any other contaminant for which

monitoring is required by § 141.40

(unregulated contaminants); and

(C) monitoring for disinfection byproducts or microbiological
7624 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

contaminants as required by §§ 141.140

and 141.142, except as provided under

paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

(ii) Where a system is allowed to

monitor for certain contaminants less

often than once a year, the report must

include the results and date of the most

recent sampling and a brief explanation

for why the sample was not taken

within the 12-month period covered by

the report.

(iii) For detected regulated

contaminants (listed in Appendix A to

this subpart), the table must contain:

(A) The MCL for that contaminant

expressed in whole numbers (such as

those in Appendix A to this subpart);

(B) The MCLG for that contaminant

expressed in the same units;

(C) If there is no MCL for a detected

contaminant, the table must note

whether there is a treatment technique

or specify the action level applicable to

that contaminant, and the report must

include the definitions for treatment

technique and action level specified in

paragraph (c)(3) of this section;

(D) The highest contaminant level

used to determine compliance with an

NPDWR. This may be either an

individual reading or an average,

depending on compliance monitoring

requirements for the contaminant. The

table must clearly identify MCLs for

which compliance is based on an

average and explain what that means.

When an MCL is based on a systemwide average and more than 10 percent

of the customers are exposed to a level

of contaminant which is consistently

higher than the MCL, the report must

contain information regarding the

magnitude of exposure and the location

of the exposed population.

(E) The likely source(s) for the

contaminant. If the operator is not

certain of the specific source of a

contaminant, the reports must include

the typical sources for that contaminant

listed in Appendix A to this subpart.

(F) If a community water system

distributes water to its customers from

several raw sources and the sources are

not blended, the table should contain a

separate column for each service area

and the report should identify the

service area for each entry point.

(iv) The table must clearly identify

regulated contaminants detected in

violation of a MCL or exceeding an

action level, and the report must contain

a clear and readily understandable

explanation of the violation including:

the length of the violation, the potential

adverse health effects, and actions taken

by the system to address the violation.

To describe the potential health effects

the system must use the relevant

language of Appendix B to this subpart.

(v) For detected unregulated

contaminants for which monitoring is

required, (except Cryptosporidium) the

table must contain the highest level at

which the contaminant was detected.

The reports may include a brief

explanation of the reasons for

monitoring for unregulated

contaminants.

(4) If the system has performed any

monitoring for Cryptosporidium,

including monitoring performed to

satisfy the requirements of § 141.142,

which indicates that Cryptosporidium

may be present in the source water or

the finished water, the report must

include:

(i) A summary of the results of the

monitoring;

(ii) Information on how the

monitoring was performed; and

(iii) An explanation of the

significance of the results.

(5) If the system has performed any

monitoring for radon which indicates

that radon may be present in the

finished water, the report must include:

(i) the results of the monitoring;

(ii) information on how the

monitoring was performed; and

(iii) an explanation of the significance

of the results.

(6) If the system has performed

additional monitoring which indicates

the presence of other contaminants in

the finished water, EPA strongly

encourages systems to report any results

which may indicate a health concern.

To determine if results may indicate a

health concern, EPA recommends that

systems find out if EPA has proposed an

NPDWR or issued a health advisory for

that contaminant by calling the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline (800–426–4791).

EPA considers detects above a proposed

MCL or health advisory level to indicate

possible health concerns. For such

contaminants, EPA recommends that

the report include:

(i) The results of the monitoring; and

(ii) An explanation of the significance

of the results noting the existence of a

health advisory or a proposed

regulation.

(e) Compliance with NPDWR. In

addition to the requirements of

§ 141.153(d)(3)(iv), the report must:

(1) Note any violation of the following

requirements:

(i) Monitoring and reporting;

(ii) Treatment techniques;

(A) Filtration and disinfection;

(B) Lead and copper control

requirements;

(C) Treatment techniques for

Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin;

(iii) Record keeping;

(iv) Special monitoring requirements;

and

(v) Violation of the terms of a

variance, an exemption, or an

administrative or judicial order; and

(2) Include a clear and readily

understandable explanation of the

violation, any potential adverse health

effects, and the steps the system has

taken to correct the violation. For a

violation of a treatment technique, the

report must include the relevant health

effect language of § 141.154(c).

(f) Variances and exemptions. If a

system has been granted a variance or

an exemption, the report must contain:

(1) An explanation of the reasons for

the variance or exemption;

(2) The date on which the variance or

exemption was issued;

(3) A brief status report on the steps

the system is taking to install treatment,

find alternative sources of water, or

otherwise comply with the terms and

schedules of the variance or exemption;

and

(4) A notice of any opportunity for

public input in the review of the

variance or exemption.

(g) Additional information. (1) The

reports must contain a brief explanation

regarding contaminants which may

reasonably be expected to be found in

drinking water including bottled water.

This explanation may include the

language of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through

(iii) of this section. Paragraph (g)(1)(iv)

of this section is provided as a minimal

alternative to paragraphs (g)(1)(i)

through (iii) of this section. Systems

may also develop their own comparable

language. The report also must include

the language of paragraph (g)(1)(v) of

this section.

(i) The sources of drinking water (both

tap water and bottled water) include

rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs,

springs, and wells. As water travels over

the surface of the land or through the

ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring

minerals and radioactive material, and

can pick up substances resulting from

the presence of animals or from human

activity.

(ii) Contaminants that may be present

in source water include:

(A) Biological contaminants, such as

viruses and bacteria, which may come

from sewage treatment plants, septic

systems, agricultural livestock

operations, and wildlife.

(B) Inorganic contaminants, such as

salts and metals, which can be

naturally-occurring or result from urban

storm run-off, industrial or domestic

wastewater discharges, oil and gas

production, mining, or farming.

(C) Pesticides and herbicides, which

may come from a variety of sources such

as agriculture, storm water runoff, and

residential uses.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7625

(D) Organic chemicals, including

synthetic and volatile organics, which

are by-products of industrial processes

and petroleum production, and can also

come from gas stations, urban storm

water run-off and septic systems.

(E) Radioactive materials, which can

be naturally-occurring or be the result of

oil and gas production and mining

activities. (iii) In order to ensure that tap

water is safe to drink, EPA prescribes

regulations which limit the amount of

certain contaminants in water provided

by public water systems. FDA

regulations establish limits for

contaminants in bottled water.

(iv) All drinking water, including

bottled water, may reasonably be

expected to contain at least small

amounts of some contaminants.

(v) The presence of contaminants does

not necessarily indicate that water poses

a health risk. More information about

contaminants and potential health

effects can be obtained by calling the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe

Drinking Water Hotline (800–426–4791).

(2) The report must include the

telephone number of the owner,

operator, or designee of the public water

system as a source of additional

information concerning the report.

(3) In communities with a large

proportion of non-English speaking

residents, the report must contain

information in the appropriate language

regarding the importance of the report

or contain a telephone number or

address where such residents may

contact the system to obtain a translated

copy of the report or assistance in the

appropriate language.

(4) The systems must include in the

report information (e.g., time and place

of regularly scheduled board meetings)

about opportunities for public

participation in decisions that may

affect the quality of the water.

(5) The systems may include such

additional information as they deem

necessary for public education

consistent with, and not detracting

from, the purpose of the report.

§ 141.154 Required health information.

(a) All reports must prominently

display the following language: Some

people may be more vulnerable to

contaminants in drinking water than the

general population. Immunocompromised persons such as persons

with cancer undergoing chemotherapy,

persons who have undergone organ

transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or

other immune system disorders, some

elderly, and infants can be particularly

at risk from infections. These people

should seek advice about drinking water

from their health care providers. EPA/

CDC guidelines on appropriate means to

lessen the risk of infection by

Cryptosporidium are available from the

Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800–426–

4791).

(b) Reports which identify a violation

of a treatment technique must include

the relevant language listed in

paragraph (c) of this section:

(1) Surface Water Treatment Rule: (i)

For unfiltered systems required to filter:

Unfiltered water may contain organisms

such as viruses, bacteria, and Giardia.

When they are present in sufficient

number, these organisms can cause

symptoms such as diarrhea, cramps,

headaches, and fatigue. EPA has

determined that these organisms can be

controlled more effectively by requiring

water systems to filter that water rather

than by setting an MCL.

(ii) For filtered systems in violation of

the SWTR: Inadequately treated water

may contain organisms such as viruses,

bacteria, Giardia, and Legionella. When

they are present in sufficient number,

these organisms can cause symptoms

such as diarrhea, cramps, headaches

and fatigue. EPA has determined that

these organisms can be controlled more

effectively by requiring water systems to

filter and disinfect that water than by

setting an MCL.

(2) Acrylamide: Acrylamide is an

impurity found in some chemicals used

in drinking water treatment. EPA has

determined that requiring proper use of

water treatment chemicals is more

effective than setting an MCL for their

impurities. People who drink water

containing high levels of acrylamide

over a long period of time could have

problems with their nervous system

including paralysis and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(3) Epichlorohydrin: Epichlorohydrin

is an impurity found in some chemicals

used in drinking water treatment. EPA

has determined that requiring proper

use of water treatment chemicals is

more effective than setting an MCL for

their impurities. People who drink

water containing high levels of

epichlorohydrin over a long period of

time could experience stomach, eye, or

skin irritation, and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

§ 141.155 Report delivery.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(e) of this section, each community

water system must mail one copy of the

report to each customer. In addition, the

system must make a good faith effort to

reach consumers who do not get water

bills, using means recommended by the

State.

(b) Each community water system

must mail a copy of the report to the

State with a certification that the report

has been distributed to customers, and

that the information is correct and

consistent with the compliance

monitoring data previously submitted to

the State.

(c) Each community water system

must mail a copy of the report to:

(1) Any other Agency in the State

with jurisdiction over community water

systems, such as Public Utility

Commissions;

(2) To State consumer advocate offices

(if any); and

(3) To any other Agency or

Clearinghouse identified by the

Drinking Water Program Director.

(d) Each community water system

must make its reports available to the

public upon request.

(e) The Governor of a State, or the

Tribal Leader where the Tribe has met

the eligibility requirements contained in

§ 142.72 for the purposes of waiving the

mailing requirement, can waive the

mailing requirement of paragraph (a) of

this section for community water

systems serving fewer than 10,000

persons. In consultation with the tribal

government, the regional Administrator

may waive the mailing requirement of

paragraph (a) of this section in areas in

Indian country where no tribe has been

deemed eligible.

(1) Such systems must:

(i) Publish the reports in one or more

local newspapers serving the area in

which the system is located;

(ii) Inform the customers that the

reports will not be mailed, either in the

newspapers in which the reports are

published or by other means approved

by the State; and

(iii) Make the reports available to the

public upon request.

(2) Systems serving 500 or fewer

persons may forego the requirements of

paragraphs (e)(1) (i) and (ii) of this

section if they provide notice at least

once per year to their customers by

mail, door-to-door delivery or by

posting in an appropriate location that

the report is available upon request.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
7626 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Appendix A to Subpart O to Part 141—Regulated Contaminants
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7627
7628 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7629
7630 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7631

Appendix B to Subpart O of Part 141—

Health Effect Language

Biological Contaminants

(1) Total Coliform. Coliforms are bacteria

which are naturally present in the

environment and are used as an indicator

that other, potentially-harmful bacteria may

be present. Coliforms were found in more

samples than allowed and this was a warning

of potential problems.

(2) Fecal coliform/E.Coli. Fecal coliform

and E. Coli are bacteria whose presence

indicates that the water may be contaminated

with human or animal wastes. Germs in these

wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea,

headaches, or fatigue.

Radioactive Contaminants

(3) Beta/photon emitters. Certain minerals

are radioactive; photons and beta radiation

are types of radioactivity. People who drink

water containing beta and photon emitters in

excess of the MCL over many years may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(4) Alpha emitters. Certain minerals are

radioactive and emit a form of radiation

known as alpha radiation. People who drink

water containing these alpha emitters in

excess of the MCL over many years may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(5) Combined Radium 226/228. People

who drink water containing Radium 226 or

228 in excess of the MCL over many years

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Inorganic Contaminants

(6) Antimony. People who drink water

containing antimony well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

changes in the cholesterol or glucose level in

their blood.

(7) Arsenic. People who drink water

containing arsenic well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience skin

damage or problems with their nervous

system.

(8) Asbestos. People who drink water

containing asbestos in excess of the MCL

over many years could get lung disease or

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(9) Barium. People who drink water

containing barium well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience high blood

pressure.

(10) Beryllium. People who drink water

containing beryllium in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience bone or

lung problems, or may have an increased risk

of cancer.

(11) Cadmium. People who drink water

containing cadmium well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

kidney problems.

(12) Chromium. People who drink water

containing chromium well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their kidneys or circulation.

(13) Copper. Copper is an essential nutrient

but people who drink water containing

copper in excess of the action level over a

relatively short amount of time could

experience problems with their stomach or

intestines. People who drink water

containing copper well in excess of the

action level over many years could suffer

liver or kidney damage. People with Wilson’s

Disease should consult their personal doctor.

(14) Cyanide. People who drink water

containing cyanide well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience weight

loss, nerve damage, or problems with their

thyroid.

(15) Fluoride. People who drink water

containing fluoride well in excess of the MCL

over many years could get bone disease.

(16) Lead. Infants and children who drink

water containing lead in excess of the action

level could experience delays in their

physical or mental development. Children

could show slight deficits in attention span

and learning abilities. Adults who drink this

water over many years could develop kidney

problems, high blood pressure, or may be at

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(17) Mercury. People who drink water

containing mercury well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

kidney damage.

(18) Nitrate. Infants below the age of six

months who drink water containing nitrate in

excess of the MCL could become seriously ill

and die. Adults who drink water containing

nitrates well in excess of the MCL over many

years could experience kidney or spleen

problems.

(19) Nitrite. Infants below the age of six

months who drink water containing nitrite in

excess of the MCL could become seriously ill

and die. Adults who drink water containing

nitrite well in excess of the MCL over many

years could experience kidney or spleen

problems.

(20) Selenium. Selenium is an essential

nutrient. However, people who drink water

containing selenium well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience hair

or fingernail losses, or problems with their

kidneys, liver, nervous system, or circulation.

(21) Thallium. People who drink water

containing thallium well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

changes in their blood, problems with their

kidney, intestine, or liver, or hair loss.

(22) Turbidity. There is no MCL for

turbidity, and turbidity has no health effects.

However, turbidity can provide a medium for

bacterial growth.

Synthetic Organic Chemicals Including

Pesticides and Herbicides

(23) 2,4-D. People who drink water

containing the weed-killer 2,4-D well in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their nervous

system, kidneys, or liver.

(24) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex). People who drink

water containing silvex well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

minor liver or kidney problems.

(25) Alachlor. People who drink water

containing alachlor in excess of the MCL over

many years could have problems with their

liver, kidneys, or spleen, or may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(26) Atrazine. People who drink water

containing atrazine in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience weight loss,

problems with their heart or retinas, some

muscle deterioration, or may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(27) Benzo(a)pyrene [PAHs]. People who

drink water containing benzo(a)pyrene in

excess of the MCL over many years may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(28) Carbofuran. People who drink water

containing carbofuran well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their nervous or reproductive

systems.

(29) Chlordane. People who drink water

containing chlordane in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems

with their liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, spleen

or adrenal glands, or may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

(30) Dalapon. People who drink water

containing dalapon well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience minor

kidney changes.

(31) Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate. People who

drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl)

adipate well in excess of the MCL over many

years could experience reduced body weight

or bone mass, problems with their liver or

testicles, or may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(32) Di (2-ethylhexyl) phathalate. People

who drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate in excess of the MCL over many

years may have problems with their liver,

testicles, or experience adverse reproductive

effects, and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(33) Dinoseb. People who drink water

containing dinoseb well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience changes in

their thyroid or testicles.

(34) Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). People who

drink water containing dioxin in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

problems with their reproductive system and

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(35) Diquat. People who drink water

containing diquat well in excess of the MCL

over many years could get cataracts.

(36) Endothall. People who drink water

containing endothall well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience an

increase in the size of their stomach or

intestines.

(37) Endrin. People who drink water

containing endrin well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience

convulsions or liver problems.

(38) Glyphosate. People who drink water

containing glyphosate well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their kidneys or adverse

reproductive effects.

(39) Heptachlor. People who drink water

containing heptachlor in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience extensive

liver damage and may have an increased risk

of getting cancer.

(40) Heptachlor epoxide. People who drink

water containing heptachlor epoxide in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience extensive liver damage, and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(41) Hexachlorobenzene. People who drink

water containing hexachlorobenzene in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver or

kidneys, adverse reproductive effects, benign

tumor of endocrine glands, and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(42) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. People

who drink water containing hexachloro-
7632 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

cyclopentadiene well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems

with their stomach or kidneys.

(43) Lindane. People who drink water

containing lindane well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems

with their kidneys or liver.

(44) Methoxychlor. People who drink water

containing methoxychlor well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

problems with their liver, heart, or kidneys.

(45) Oxamyl [Vydate]. People who drink

water containing oxamyl well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

weight loss.

(46) PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls].

People who drink water containing PCBs in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience irritation of the nose, throat, or

gastrointestinal tract, and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(47) Pentachlorophenol. People who drink

water containing pentachlorophenol in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver or

kidneys, and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(48) Picloram. People who drink water

containing picloram well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their liver.

(49) Simazine. People who drink water

containing simazine in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience tremors,

have problems with their kidneys, liver, or

thyroid, and have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

(50) Toxaphene. People who drink water

containing toxaphene in excess of the MCL

over many years could suffer from kidney or

liver degeneration, have problems with their

nervous system, and may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

Volatile Organic Chemicals

(51) Benzene. People who drink water

containing benzene in excess of the MCL

over many years may have an increased risk

of getting cancer.

(52) Carbon Tetrachloride. People who

drink water containing carbon tetrachloride

in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(53) Chlorobenzene. People who drink

water containing chlorobenzene well in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their kidneys,

liver, or nervous system.

(54) Dibromochloropropane (DBCP).

People who drink water containing DBCP in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience some kidney damage and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(55) o-Dichlorobenzene. People who drink

water containing o-dichlorobenzene well in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver,

kidneys, nervous systems, or damage to their

blood cells.

(56) para-Dichlorobenzene. People who

drink water containing p-dichlorobenzene

well in excess of the MCL over many years

could experience anemia, skin lesions, loss of

appetite, damage to their liver, or changes in

their blood.

(57) 1,2-Dichloroethane. People who drink

water containing 1,2-dichloroethane in

excess of the MCL over many years may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(58) 1,1-Dichloroethylene. People who

drink water containing 1,1-dichloroethylene

in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver and

kidneys and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(59) cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene. People who

drink water containing cis-1,2-

dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems

with their liver, their circulation, or their

nervous system.

(60) trans-1,2-Dicholoroethylene. People

who drink water containing trans-1,2-

dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems

with their liver, their circulation, or their

nervous system.

(61) Dichloromethane. People who drink

water containing dichloromethane in excess

of the MCL over many years could have liver

problems and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(62) 1,2-Dichloropropane. People who

drink water containing 1,2-dichloropropane

in excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver,

kidneys, bladder, digestive or respiratory

systems, and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(63) Ethylbenzene. People who drink water

containing ethylbenzene well in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their liver, kidneys, central

nervous system, or eyes.

(64) Ethylene dibromide. People who drink

water containing ethylene dibromide in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their nervous

system, liver, heart, or kidneys, and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(65) Styrene. People who drink water

containing styrene in excess of the MCL over

many years could have problems with their

liver and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(66) Tetrachloroethylene. People who

drink water containing tetrachloroethylene in

excess of the MCL over many years could

have problems with their liver, kidney or

nervous system, and may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

(67) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. People who

drink water containing 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience changes in

their adrenal glands.

(68) 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane. People who

drink water containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane

well in excess of the MCL over many years

could experience problems with their liver,

nervous system or circulation.

(69) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. People who

drink water containing 1,1,2-trichloroethane

in excess of the MCL over many years could

have problems with their liver or kidneys,

and may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

(70) Trichloroethylene. People who drink

water containing trichloroethylene in excess

of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(71) THMs [Total Trihalomethanes]. People

who drink water containing trihalomethanes

in excess of the MCL over many years may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(72) Toluene. People who drink water

containing toluene well in excess of the MCL

over many years could have problems with

their nervous system, kidneys, or liver.

(73) Vinyl Chloride. People who drink

water containing vinyl chloride in excess of

the MCL over many years could have

problems with their liver or nervous system,

and may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

(74) Xylenes. People who drink water

containing xylenes well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience damage to

their nervous system or problems with their

liver or kidneys.

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

1. The authority citation for part 142

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

2. Section 142.10 would be amended

by adding a new paragraph (b)(6)(vii) to

read as follows:

§ 142.10 Requirements for a determination

of primary enforcement responsibility.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) * * *

(vii) Authority to require community

water systems to provide consumer

confidence reports as required under 40

CFR part 141, subpart O.

* * * * *

3. Section 142.16 would be amended

by adding paragraph (f) to read as

follows:

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *

(f) Consumer confidence report

requirements. (1) Each State that has

primary enforcement responsibility

must adopt the requirements of 40 CFR

part 141, subpart O, no later than [date

2 years after date of publication of final

rule in the Federal Register]. States

must submit revised programs to EPA

for approval using the procedures in

§ 142.12(b) through (d).

(2) Each State that has primary

enforcement responsibility must make

reports submitted to the States in

compliance with 40 CFR 141.155(b)

available to the public upon request or

maintain a list of telephone numbers for

operators of community water systems.

(3) Each State that has primary

enforcement responsibility must

maintain the certifications obtained

pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(b) for a

period of 5 years.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 7633

4. Section 142.72 would be amended

by revising the introductory text to read

as follows:

§ 142.72 Requirements for tribal eligibility.

The Administrator is authorized to

treat an Indian tribe as eligible to apply

for primary enforcement for the Public

Water System Program and the authority

to waive the mailing requirements of 40

CFR 141.155(a) if it meets the following

criteria:

* * * * *

5. Section 142.78 would be amended

by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 142.78 Procedure for processing an

Indian tribe’s application.

* * * * *

(b) A tribe that meets the

requirements of 40 CFR 141.72 is

eligible to apply for development grants

and primacy enforcement responsibility

for a Public Water System Program and

associated funding under section

1443(a) of the Act and for primary

enforcement responsibility for public

water systems under section 1413 of the

Act and for the authority to waive the

mailing requirement of 40 CFR

141.155(a).

[FR Doc. 98–3752 Filed 2–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P